CIT vs. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD

ITA - 1680 / 2010HC Delhi19 December 201349 pages
For Petitioner: KAMAL SAWHNEY
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that license fees paid up to July 31, 1999, were capital expenditure, while fees on a revenue-sharing basis after August 1, 1999, were revenue expenditure. Interest on delayed license fee payments was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The appeals concerned whether license fees paid by telecom companies were capital or revenue expenditure. A key distinction was made between fees paid under the 1994 agreement and the variable license fees under the New Telecom Policy, 1999.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the classification of license fees as capital or revenue expenditure. An additional issue involved the nature of interest paid on delayed license fee payments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35ABB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 55 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cases cited in this judgment(20)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V ITA 1679/2010 Reserved on: 13"' August, 2013 Date of Decision: |1+^December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: MrAjay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1680/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 114/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Senior Standing Counsel With Ms.Anshul Sharma, Adv. Versus BHARTIHEXACOM LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Voliora, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 996/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, 2013:DHC:7816-DB

Versus Senior Standing Counsel With Ms.Anshul Sharma, Adv. BHARTIHEXACOM LIMITED Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1328/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI HEXACOM LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra. Ms.Kavita J

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 35ABB

All 81 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35ABB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →