Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT

372 ITR 33High Court2015#752 most cited

What is Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Provisions of section 194H of the Income-tax Act are not applicable on the discount extended by a company to its distributors.

136

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 194H · TDS on discount · discount to distributors · applicability of 194H · distributor commission · non-applicability of 194H · Income-tax Act 1961 · discount vs. commission · withholding tax on distributors

Sections most often in play

Section 40(a)(ia)Section 194HSection 35ABBSection 37(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 35ABASection 263

Issues it is cited on

section 35abbsection 272bbbsection 271bbsection 272aasection 271fbsection 272bbsection 194hsection 35ddsection 271casection 272bsection 271basection 271fa

Judgments citing Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…standard agreements across India. We also find that the Pune Tribunal relied on para 62 of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti ITA No.1073/Del/2015 & ITA No.1158/Del/2015 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Airtel Ltd vs DCIT reported in 372 ITR 33 (Kar). We find that the Pune Tribunal had taken note of the fact that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in 372 ITR 33 had distinguished all the three High Court judgements (i.e. Kerala, Calcutta and Delhi) relied upon by the ld. DR hereinabove. Effectively Pune Tribunal adopted the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The ld. DR relied on para 64…

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ements across India.\nWe also find that the Pune Tribunal relied on para 62 of the\ndecision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti\n\n\nITA No.1073/Del/2015 & ITA No.1158/Del/2015\n Assessment Year 2010-2011\n64\nAirtel Ltd vs DCIT reported in 372 ITR 33 (Kar). We find that the\nPune Tribunal had taken note of the fact that Hon'ble Karnataka\nHigh Court in 372 ITR 33 had distinguished all the three High\nCourt judgements (i.e. Kerala, Calcutta and Delhi) relied upon by\nthe ld. DR hereinabove. Effectively Pune Tribunal adopted the\ndecision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The ld. DR relied on\npa…

ACIT CIRCLE 25(1) , DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. , DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 17/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

…in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan and Karnataka High Court in the Appellant's own case, reported as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 402 ITR 539 and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 respectively. wherein it was categorically held that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the…

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 337/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

…in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan and Karnataka High Court in the Appellant's own case, reported as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 402 ITR 539 and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 respectively. wherein it was categorically held that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the…

DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5927/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

…in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan and Karnataka High Court in the Appellant's own case, reported as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 402 ITR 539 and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 respectively. wherein it was categorically held that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the…

DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5926/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

…in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan and Karnataka High Court in the Appellant's own case, reported as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 402 ITR 539 and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 respectively. wherein it was categorically held that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the…

DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5925/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

…in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan and Karnataka High Court in the Appellant's own case, reported as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 402 ITR 539 and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 respectively. wherein it was categorically held that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the…

DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5924/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

…in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan and Karnataka High Court in the Appellant's own case, reported as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 402 ITR 539 and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 respectively. wherein it was categorically held that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the…

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5666/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

…in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan and Karnataka High Court in the Appellant's own case, reported as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 402 ITR 539 and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 respectively. wherein it was categorically held that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the…

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5665/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

…in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan and Karnataka High Court in the Appellant's own case, reported as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 402 ITR 539 and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 respectively. wherein it was categorically held that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the…

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 4150/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

…in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan and Karnataka High Court in the Appellant's own case, reported as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 402 ITR 539 and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 respectively. wherein it was categorically held that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount extended to distributors. Further, learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, reported as CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 148 without appreciating the fact that the…

DCIT-5(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2987/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…nd not Principal to Agent, where the assessee did not have\nliability to deduct TDS on selling prepaid cards to the distributors.\n44. The ld. CIT(A) had extensively relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High\nCourt in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. 372 ITR 33, where on identical facts this issue\nhad been decided in faovur of the assessee.\n45. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.\nThough, it is observed that there are contrary decisions of various High Courts which\nare in favour of the assessee as well as against and in the absence of any jurisdictional\n…

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2150/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…not Principal to Agent, where the assessee did not have\nliability to deduct TDS on selling prepaid cards to the distributors.\n\n44. The ld. CIT(A) had extensively relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High\nCourt in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. 372 ITR 33, where on identical facts this issue\nhad been decided in faovur of the assessee.\n\n26\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018 & Ors. (A.Y. 2011-12 to 2015-16)\nVodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\n\n45. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.\nThough, it is observed that there are contrary decisions of v…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2179/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…nd not Principal to Agent, where the assessee did not have\nliability to deduct TDS on selling prepaid cards to the distributors.\n44. The ld. CIT(A) had extensively relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High\nCourt in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. 372 ITR 33, where on identical facts this issue\nhad been decided in faovur of the assessee.\n\n27\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018 & Ors. (A.Y. 2011-12 to 2015-16)\nVodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\n45. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.\nThough, it is observed that there are contrary decisions of var…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2178/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…nd not Principal to Agent, where the assessee did not have\nliability to deduct TDS on selling prepaid cards to the distributors.\n44. The ld. CIT(A) had extensively relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High\nCourt in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. 372 ITR 33, where on identical facts this issue\nhad been decided in faovur of the assessee.\n\n27\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018 & Ors. (A.Y. 2011-12 to 2015-16)\nVodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\n45. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.\nThough, it is observed that there are contrary decisions of var…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1777/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…nd not Principal to Agent, where the assessee did not have\nliability to deduct TDS on selling prepaid cards to the distributors.\n44. The ld. CIT(A) had extensively relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High\nCourt in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. 372 ITR 33, where on identical facts this issue\nhad been decided in faovur of the assessee.\n45. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.\nThough, it is observed that there are contrary decisions of various High Courts which\nare in favour of the assessee as well as against and in the absence of any jurisdictional\n…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1775/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…nd not Principal to Agent, where the assessee did not have\nliability to deduct TDS on selling prepaid cards to the distributors.\n44. The ld. CIT(A) had extensively relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High\nCourt in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. 372 ITR 33, where on identical facts this issue\nhad been decided in faovur of the assessee.\n45. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.\nThough, it is observed that there are contrary decisions of various High Courts which\nare in favour of the assessee as well as against and in the absence of any jurisdictional\n…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5945/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…nd not Principal to Agent, where the assessee did not have\nliability to deduct TDS on selling prepaid cards to the distributors.\n44. The ld. CIT(A) had extensively relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High\nCourt in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. 372 ITR 33, where on identical facts this issue\nhad been decided in faovur of the assessee.\n45. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.\nThough, it is observed that there are contrary decisions of various High Courts which\nare in favour of the assessee as well as against and in the absence of any jurisdictional\n…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT HQ (JUDL.) TO CIT-14, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…not Principal to Agent, where the assessee did not have\nliability to deduct TDS on selling prepaid cards to the distributors.\n\n44. The ld. CIT(A) had extensively relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High\nCourt in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. 372 ITR 33, where on identical facts this issue\nhad been decided in faovur of the assessee.\n\n45. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.\nThough, it is observed that there are contrary decisions of various High Courts which\nare in favour of the assessee as well as against and in the absence of any jurisdictional…

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD WHICH MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4189/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Vodafone Income Tax, Circle 26(2), Digilink Ltd Which Stands Vs. New Delhi Amalgamated With Vodafone Mobile (Jurisdiction Realigned From Service Limited) Circle 17(1), New Delhi) C-48, Phase-Ii, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110020. Pan No. Aaaca 3202 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194HSection 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

…e us, as it is not in dispute that all the distributors agreements are standard agreements across India. We also find that the Pune Tribunal relied on para 62 of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd vs DCIT reported in 372 ITR 33 (Kar). We find that the Pune Tribunal had taken note of the fact that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in 372 ITR 33 had distinguished all the three High Court judgements (i.e. Kerala, Calcutta and Delhi) relied upon by the Id. DR hereinabove. Effectively Pune Tribunal adopted the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The Id. DR relied on para 64…

Showing 1–20 of 136 · Page 1 of 7