Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 953/JP/2016 & 977/JP/2015
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.
These three appeals two by the Revenue i.e. in ITA No. 953/JP/2016 & 977/JP/2015
pertaining to the Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2013-14 and appeal of the assessee in
ITA No. 293/JP/2014 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12 are directed
2 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
against the order of Ld. CIT (A)-3, Jaipur dated 19/08/2016, 23/10/2015 & 18/02/2014 respectively. 2. Since the identical grounds have been raised and similar issues are involved in
all these appeals. All these appeals were taken up together and are being disposed
of by way of consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First, we
take up Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 953/JP/2016 pertaining to the
Assessment Year 2014-15.
In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the relation between assessee and distributors is that of principal to agent.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the demand u/s 201(1) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on commission to various distributors.”
Only effective ground in this appeal is against holding that the assessee is not
liable to deduct the TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the
commission paid to its distributors.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is
squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case in DB Income-tax Appeal Nos.
169/2015, 170/2015, 171/2015, 8/2016, 45/2016, 48/2016 & 49/2016. Ld. Counsel
for the assessee drew our attention to Page No. 134 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble
High Court, wherein the issue of deductibility of tax u/s 194H of the Act has been
decided in favour of the assessee.
On the contrary, Ld. D/R supported the Assessment Order.
3 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on
record. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue in para 4.3 of his order by observing
as under:-
4.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case with the submissions of the Appellant and also the order of AO. The issue involved in this ground is same as was in AY 2012-13 & 2013-14. The appeal of AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 has been decided by me vide order dated 24.09.2015 & 23.10.2015 allowing the ground of assessee by giving the following finding:- " I find that the issue is concluded by the Jurisdictional Tribunal in Appellant's own case (ITA No. 356 to 359/JP/2012) vide order dated May 22, 2015 in the favour of the assessee for earlier years i.e. AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as below: “…….. i. Assessee has issued sale invoices of SIM cards to its distributors net of discount. Similarly relevant entries have been entered in the books net of discount. ii. Discount or so called commission has not been separately paid to distributors, thus there is no payment of any income as emphasized by Hon 'ble Karnataka High Court in Tata Tele judgment(supra). iii. What has been effected by way of these sale transactions is sale of service embedded or encrypted on SIM cards, as held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and treating same as 'Principal to Principal transaction'. iv. The facts and circumstances of assesses case are on parity with our ITAT judgment in the case of Tata Tele Services, which we have to respectfully follow. v. In view of the facts, circumstances, rival submission and material available on record assessee is not liable for deduction u/s 194H. Therefore we reverse the orders of lower authorities on these issues and delete the demand."
4 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Tata Teleservices (ITA No. 309/JP/2012, 502, 503, 504 & 505/JP/2011, order dated March 13, 2015) and Bharti Hexacom (ITA No. 656/JP/2010 order dated June 12, 2015). My own judgment in assessee's case for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 on same matter i.e. TDS on discount, appeal no. 776/JPR/ 13-14 & 438/JPR/14-15 order dated 24.09.2015 and 23.10.2015. Respectfully following the above orders of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur & CIT(A)-3 Jaipur's. I find that no tax is deductible u/s. 194H of the Act on discount allowed to the Distributor." Since the facts of this year are the same as in AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 ground no. 1 & 2 are allowed and decided in favour of the appellant. Accordingly the ground no. 1 & 2 are allowed.”
The Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal Nos. 169/2015,
170/2015, 171/2015, 8/2016, 45/2016, 48/2016 & 49/2016 has held as
under:-
“Idea Cellular
As the agreement is produced, issues are answered in favour of assessee in the departmental appeals.
Even the contention which has been raised by the counsel for the assessee that the final tax is paid by the Distributor and not by the agent, the revenue is not at loss in any form.
In view of above, all the issues in each appeal are answered in tabular form as follows:-
Srl Appeal No. Ques. 1 Ques.2 Ques. 3 Ques. 4 Ques. 5 No. 1. 205/2005 In favour of In favour of In favour of -- -- assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against the the the
5 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
department department department 2. 206/2005 In favour of In favour of In favour of -- -- assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against the the the department department department 3. 10/2007 In favour of In favour of In favour of -- -- assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against the the the department department department 4. 55/2007 In favour of In favour of -- -- -- assessee assessee and against and against the the department department 5. 6/2008 In favour of In favour of -- -- -- assessee assessee and against and against the the department department 6. 7/2008 In favour of In favour of -- -- -- assessee assessee and against and against the the department department 7. 540/2009 In favour of In favour of -- -- -- assessee assessee and against and against the the department department 8. 1/2014 In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against and against and against the the the the the department department department department department 9. 2/2014 In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against and against and against the the the the the department department department department department 10. 3/2014 In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against and against and against the the the the the department department department department department
6 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
4/2014 In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against and against and against the the the the the department department department department department 12. 124/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 13. 125/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 14. 126/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 15. 131/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 16. 132/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assesse assessee 17. 168/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 18. 169/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 19. 170/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 20. 171/2015 Against the Against the -- -- --
7 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 21. 195/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assesse assessee 22. 08/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 23. 45/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 24. 48/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assesse assesse 25. 49/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 26. 96/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 27. 97/16 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 28. 98/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 29. 99/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department
8 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assessee assesse assesse assesse assessee 30. 100/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assesse assesse assesse assesse assesse 31. 101/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assesse assesse assesse assesse assessee 32. 102/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assesse 33. 103/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assesse assesse assesse assesse assesse 34. 104/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assesse assesse assesse assesse assesse 35. 105/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee 36. 106/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assesse assesse 37. 107/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 38. 108/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in
9 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
favour of favour of assessee assesse 39. 94/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assesse assesse 40. 200/2016 Against the Against the Against the -- -- Department Department Department and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assesse 41. 204/2016 Against the Against the Against the -- -- Department Department Department and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of assesse assessee assessee 42. 209/2016 Against the Against the Against the -- -- Department Department Department and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assesse 43. 210/2016 Against the Against the Against the -- -- Department Department Department and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assesse 44. 217/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee
In view of the above discussion, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and those of Department and dismissed.”
6.1 In view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s
own case pertaining to the earlier years in the case of Commissioner of Income
Tax(TDS) Jaipur vs. M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited K-21, Malviya Marg, C-
scheme, Jaipur in D.B. Income-tax Appeal Nos. 96/2016, 97/2016 &
10 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
98/2016 we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A),
same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
ITA No. 293/JP/2014 & 977/JP/2015
Now, we take both Assessee and Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 293/JP/2014
& 977/JP/2015 respectively pertaining to the Assessment years 2011-12 & 2013-
14.
The grounds of both the appeals are reproduced as under:-
ITA No. 293/JP/2014(Assessee)
“GROUND NO. I: 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in treating the Appellant as "assessee in default" u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the Act without ascertaining and proving that whether the recipient had paid taxes on the alleged income received / receivable from the Appellant as required u/s. 191 of the Act.
The Appellant prays that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer (TDS) - 2, Jaipur ("the TDS Officer") u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act be quashed / annulled or the TDS Officer be directed to examine whether the taxes have been paid by the recipient on their income.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.I, GROUND NO. II: NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ("TDS") UNDER SECTION 194H OF THE ACT ON DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO THE PRE-PAID DISTIBUTORS ("the Distributors"):
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the TDS Officer under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by treating "discount" offered by the Appellant to the Distributors as "commission" and thereby treating the Appellant as an "assessee in default" under section 201(1) r. w. s. 194H of the Act.
The Appellant most humbly prays that the discount allowed to the Distributors be held as not liable to TDS under section 194H of the Act as the relationship between the Appellant and its Distributors is on Principal-
11 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
to-Principal basis and, thus, the demand raised in the impugned order in respect of the alleged failure to deduct tax under section 194H of the Act be deleted.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.I AND II: GROUND NO. III:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the observations of the TDS Officer by treating the Appellant as an "assessee in default" under section 201(1) of the Act, without appreciating that it is a settled legal position that, if TDS machinery fails, the Appellant cannot be treated as an "assessee in default" under section 201(1) of the Act.
The Appellant thus prays that in the absence of any "payment or credit" to the Distributors, the Appellant should not be treated as an "assessee in default" under section 201 r.w.s. 194H of the Act.
GROUND NO. IV: GENERAL:
The Appellant craves leave to add to/alter and/ or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.”
ITA No. 977/JP/2015(Revenue)
“1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the relation between assessee and distributor is that of principal to agent.
2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the demand u/s 201(1) for non deduction of TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the commission payment to various distributors.”
The facts involved in these two appeals are identical to ITA No. 953/JP/2016
pertaining to the AY 2014-15. The Respective Representatives of the parties have
adopted the same argument as were addressed in ITA No. 953/JP/2016. We have
decided the issue by observing as under:-
12 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
“6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on
record. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue in para 4.3 of his order by
observing as under:-
4.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case with the submissions of the Appellant and also the order of AO. The issue involved in this ground is same as was in AY 2012-13 & 2013-14. The appeal of AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 has been decided by me vide order dated 24.09.2015 & 23.10.2015 allowing the ground of assessee by giving the following finding:- " I find that the issue is concluded by the Jurisdictional Tribunal in Appellant's own case (ITA No. 356 to 359/JP/2012) vide order dated May 22, 2015 in the favour of the assessee for earlier years i.e. AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as below: “…….. i. Assessee has issued sale invoices of SIM cards to its distributors net of discount. Similarly relevant entries have been entered in the books net of discount. ii. Discount or so called commission has not been separately paid to distributors, thus there is no payment of any income as emphasized by Hon 'ble Karnataka High Court in Tata Tele judgment(supra). iii. What has been effected by way of these sale transactions is sale of service embedded or encrypted on SIM cards, as held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and treating same as 'Principal to Principal transaction'. iv. The facts and circumstances of assesses case are on parity with our ITAT judgment in the case of Tata Tele Services, which we have to respectfully follow. v. In view of the facts, circumstances, rival submission and material available on record assessee is not liable for deduction u/s 194H. Therefore we reverse the orders of lower authorities on these issues and delete the demand."
13 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Tata Teleservices (ITA No. 309/JP/2012, 502, 503, 504 & 505/JP/2011, order dated March 13, 2015) and Bharti Hexacom (ITA No. 656/JP/2010 order dated June 12, 2015). My own judgment in assessee's case for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 on same matter i.e. TDS on discount, appeal no. 776/JPR/ 13-14 & 438/JPR/14-15 order dated 24.09.2015 and 23.10.2015. Respectfully following the above orders of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur & CIT(A)-3 Jaipur's. I find that no tax is deductible u/s. 194H of the Act on discount allowed to the Distributor." Since the facts of this year are the same as in AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 ground no. 1 & 2 are allowed and decided in favour of the appellant. Accordingly the ground no. 1 & 2 are allowed.”
The Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal Nos.
169/2015, 170/2015, 171/2015, 8/2016, 45/2016, 48/2016 &
49/2016 has held as under:-
“Idea Cellular
As the agreement is produced, issues are answered in favour of assessee in the departmental appeals.
Even the contention which has been raised by the counsel for the assessee that the final tax is paid by the Distributor and not by the agent, the revenue is not at loss in any form.
In view of above, all the issues in each appeal are answered in tabular form as follows:-
Srl Appeal No. Ques. 1 Ques.2 Ques. 3 Ques. 4 Ques. 5 No. 1. 205/2005 In favour of In favour of In favour of -- -- assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against the the the
14 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
department department department 2. 206/2005 In favour of In favour of In favour of -- -- assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against the the the department department department 3. 10/2007 In favour of In favour of In favour of -- -- assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against the the the department department department 4. 55/2007 In favour of In favour of -- -- -- assessee assessee and against and against the the department department 5. 6/2008 In favour of In favour of -- -- -- assessee assessee and against and against the the department department 6. 7/2008 In favour of In favour of -- -- -- assessee assessee and against and against the the department department 7. 540/2009 In favour of In favour of -- -- -- assessee assessee and against and against the the department department 8. 1/2014 In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against and against and against the the the the the department department department department department 9. 2/2014 In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against and against and against the the the the the department department department department department 10. 3/2014 In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against and against and against the the the the the department department department department department
15 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
4/2014 In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of In favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee and against and against and against and against and against the the the the the department department department department department 12. 124/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 13. 125/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 14. 126/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 15. 131/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 16. 132/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assesse assessee 17. 168/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 18. 169/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 19. 170/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 20. 171/2015 Against the Against the -- -- --
16 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 21. 195/2015 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assesse assessee 22. 08/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 23. 45/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 24. 48/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assesse assesse 25. 49/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 26. 96/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 27. 97/16 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assessee 28. 98/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 29. 99/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department
17 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assessee assesse assesse assesse assessee 30. 100/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assesse assesse assesse assesse assesse 31. 101/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assesse assesse assesse assesse assessee 32. 102/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assesse 33. 103/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assesse assesse assesse assesse assesse 34. 104/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assesse assesse assesse assesse assesse 35. 105/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee 36. 106/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assesse assesse 37. 107/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assessee assesse 38. 108/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in
18 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
favour of favour of assessee assesse 39. 94/2016 Against the Against the -- -- -- Department Department and in and in favour of favour of assesse assesse 40. 200/2016 Against the Against the Against the -- -- Department Department Department and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assesse 41. 204/2016 Against the Against the Against the -- -- Department Department Department and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of assesse assessee assessee 42. 209/2016 Against the Against the Against the -- -- Department Department Department and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assesse 43. 210/2016 Against the Against the Against the -- -- Department Department Department and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assesse 44. 217/2016 Against the Against the Against the Against the Against the Department Department Department Department Department and in and in and in and in and in favour of favour of favour of favour of favour of assessee assessee assessee assessee assessee
In view of the above discussion, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and those of Department and dismissed.”
6.1 In view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in
assessee’s own case pertaining to the earlier years in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Jaipur vs. M/s Bharti Hexacom
Limited K-21, Malviya Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur in D.B. Income-tax
19 ITA Nos. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Jaipur.
Appeal Nos. 96/2016, 97/2016 & 98/2016 we do not see any reason to
interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. Grounds
raised in this appeal are dismissed.”
9.1 For the same reasoning given in ITA No. 953/JP/2016, we find no reason to
take a different view in these cases. We therefore, dismiss the Revenue’s appeal in
ITA No. 977/JP/2015 and allow the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 293/JP/2014.
In the Combined result, both Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s
appeal is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 6th day of October 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 06/10/2017. Pooja/
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
The Appellant- DCIT (TDS), Jaipur. 2. The Respondent – M/s Idea Cellular Limited, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 953/JP/2016, 977/JP/2015 & 293/JP/2014)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत