Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
t3447l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 588 OF 2018 Appeal filed under Section 260(4) of the lncome-Tax Act, against the order dated.20-07-2018 passed in lTA.No. 14451Hyd12015 (Assessment year 2014-15) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench'B', Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated: 30-10-2015 passed in ITA No.0513/C|T(A)- 8iHydel2015-16 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad preferred against the Assessment Order dated: 09-03-2015 passed in TAN/PAN No. HYD|00916G/AAACB2100P on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax(TDS), TDS Circle 1(1 ), Hyderabad. Between: M/s.Vodafone ldea Limited, (Formerly Known as M/s.ldea Cellular Limited), 5-9- 62,Khan Lateef Khan Estate,Fateh Maidan Road,Basheerbagh,Hyderabad- 500004,Telangana ...APPELLANT AND The Asst Commissioner Of lncome Tax, TDS Circle,Ward-1(1), Hyderabad,4th Floor,B-Block, lncome Tax Towers,A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-500004,Talangana .,.RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following: ORDER i l l I I I I I I I i I I
THE I]ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA ITTA No.588 OF 2018 JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.Rama Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondent. Perused the record. 2. With the consent, finally heard. 3. Learned counsel fbr the appellant, at the ourset, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Cellular Ltd., v. Assistsnt Commissioner of Income lax'I submits that singular point involved in this matter is no more res integra and cuftains are finally drawn by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in the said case. It is submitted that the stand of the petitioner was the activity in question is a sale, whereas the respondenls are treating it to be "commission". Since, the Hon'ble Suprerre Court has I I I '(2024) 462 rTR 247 (SC)
2 To, decided the aforesaid point in favour of assessees, the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Leamed counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that singular point above indeed covered by the recent judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd,s case supra. 5. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER '1 . The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad 3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax(TDS), TDS Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. 4. One CC to Sri A. V. A. Siva Kartikeya, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Mr. A. Rama Krishna Reddy, S.C, for lncome Tax Department loPUCl 6. Two CD Copies Plp/gh 1# I , I \ \ I
HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 lTTA.No.588 of 2018 ALLOWING THE APPEAL 1Hf, S IA rci ( d 21 rqi ' 2025 c -/ aU n6 d" JUDGMENT t )