ACIT v. Bharati Cellular Ltd.

105 ITD 129Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#5393 most cited

What is ACIT v. Bharati Cellular Ltd. authority for?

The case establishes a precedent in favour of the revenue regarding issues related to Section 194H, Section 201(1), and Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, concerning the treatment of a company as an assessee in default.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Bharati Cellular Ltd. · 105 ITD 129 · ITAT 2007 · section 194h · section 201(1a) · assessee in default · section 201(1) · company · india · business · document · interest

Issues it is cited on

section 194hsection 201(1a)assessee in defaultsection 201(1)section 194section 19companyindiabusinessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing ACIT v. Bharati Cellular Ltd.

ITO TDS 3(3), Mumbai vs. Super Religare Laboratoris Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4579/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 4579 & 4580/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 The Ito, Tds-3(3), M/S. Super Religare बनाम/ Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Hospital Bldg., Plot No. Charni Road (W), D-3, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400 002 Distyrict Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 2809J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Kailash Gaikwad अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Yogesh Thar

For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar
Section 194Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…referred to on behalf of the Department, these are as follows:- 1. “CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd.”, 319 ITR 29 (Del); 2. “CIT v. Director, Prasar Bharti”, 325 ITR 205(Ker); 3. “Delhi Milk Scheme v. CIT”, 301 ITR 373(Del); 4. “ACIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd.”, 105 ITD 129(Kol); & 5. “Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages v. ITO”, 97 ITD 105(JP). 27. Apropos “CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd.” (supra), it was observed, inter alia, that in the area of travel business, the airline appoints agents who are accredited with IATA. These agents maintain blank ticket stock of the airline. The agents are authorized to issue tickets to…