THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD, PLOT NO. 21, I.T. PARK, CHANDIGARH (TAN: PTLB10577A)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/433/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119303201812 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not legally obligated to deduct tax at source on the income component of payments made to distributors/franchisees for selling pre-paid coupons or starter kits. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the ITAT's order which held that Section 194H of the Income Tax Act was not applicable to payments made by the assessee (Bharti Airtel Ltd.) to its distributors for selling pre-paid coupons and starter kits.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, concerning deduction of tax at source on commission or brokerage, was applicable to payments made by a telecom company to its distributors for selling pre-paid coupons and starter kits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194H

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-433-2018 a

262

IN TH The Commiss M/s Bharti Ai The Commiss M/s Bharti Ai CORAM: H

Present: M

SANJEEV P

B decided. 2.

T assailing the o

and ITA-437-2018

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR sioner of Income Tax (TDS)-1, C Vs.

irtel Ltd. Chandigarh sioner of Income Tax (TDS)-1, C Vs.

irtel Ltd. Chandigarh **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co for the Income Tax Department/R Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate an Mr. Smeesh Bassi, Advocate For

**** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) By way of this common order, These appeals have been preferr order passed by the Income Tax

Page 1 of 3 AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-433-2018(O&M) Chandigarh . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent ITA-437-2018(O&M) Chandigarh . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent Date of Decision: 12.09.2024 NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH g counsel with ounsel Revenue. nd r the respondent(s). ) the aforesaid appeals are being red by the appellant(s)/Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh

) t t ) t t

4 g e h RASHMI 2024.09.16 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-433-2018 a

(for short ‘th respectively, w Tax Act to the 3.

L issue is no mo Supreme Cou Assistant Com passed in Civi The rel under:

and ITA-437-2018

he ITAT’) for the assessment whereby it held inapplicability o e payments made by the assesse Learned counsel for the appella ore res integra in view of the j urt, ‘ Bharti Cellular Limited (N mmissioner of Income Tax, Ci il Appeal No. 7257-2011, dated levant extract of Bharti Cellul “42. In view of the afores assessees would not be un tax at source on the in payments received by the d third parties/customers, o pre-paid coupons or st Section 194-H of the Act is circumstances of this case by the assessee-cellula challenging the judgment and Calcutta are allowed aside. The appeals filed b judgments of High Courts Bombay are dismissed. T cost. Pending Application of.”

Page 2 of 3 year 2009-10 and 2010-2011 of Section 194 H of the Income e. ant(s)/revenue submits that the udgment passed by the Hon’ble Now Bharti Airtel Limited) Vs. ircle 57, Kolkata and another’ 28.02.2024. lar Limited (supra), reads as said discussion, we hold that the nder a legal obligation to deduct ncome/profit component in the distributors/franchisees from the or while selling/transferring the tarter-kits to the distributors. s not applicable to the facts and e. Accordingly, the appeals filed r mobile service providers, ts of the High Courts of Delhi d and these judgments are set by the Revenue challenging the s of Rajashtan, Karnataka and There would be no orders as to ns, if any, shall stand disposed

1 e e e

’ s e t e e e

d d , i t e d o d RASHMI 2024.09.16 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-433-2018 a

I not pass any Court shall ap same are dism 5.

P disposed of ac

September 12 Rashmi 1. Whethe 2. Whethe

and ITA-437-2018

In view of the respondent(s) bei further order and the order pa pply mutatis mutandis to the p missed. Pending miscellaneous applica ccordingly.

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Page 3 of 3 ing the same company, we need assed by the Hon’ble Supreme resent appeal. Accordingly, the ation(s), if any, shall stand JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d e e d RASHMI 2024.09.16 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 194H

All 1,314 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194H →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →