Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT

372 ITR 33High Court2015#728 most cited

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

Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable on the discount extended to distributors of pre-paid services, as the distributor does not earn income at the time of purchasing pre-paid cards from the assessee. The assessee is not in possession of any income belonging to the distributor at that point.

139

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bharti Airtel Ltd v DCIT · 372 ITR 33 · section 194H · TDS · prepaid cards · discount to distributors · principal and agent · disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)

Sections most often in play

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

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

Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Ltd. Which Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Ltd. and Consequently Known As Idea Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle- 5 (3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved; Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Date
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 194HSection 32(1)Section 40Section 92C

…e Digilink Limited and Hon'ble Kamataka decision in case of erstwhile Vodafone South Limited, which have since merged into the Appellant), reported as Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd 402 ITR 2 A.Y.2014-2015 539 and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 33, respectively, wherein it has been categorically held that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the discount of extended to distributors of pre-paid services. 2.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP/AO have erred in concluding that the relationship between the Appellant and its dis…

N C Shaw and Co Beverages Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Range-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1947/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

…deduct TDS on such payments. • All India Radio Commercial Broadcasting Service Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India Akashvani Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi V. Income-tax officer [2006] 8 SOT 513 (Delhi ITAT) • Bharti Airtel Limited vs DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 (Karnataka) • Additional Commissioner of Income-tax V. Pearl Bottling (P.) Ltd. ([2011] 10 taxmann.com 47 (Visakhapatnam ITAT) • Government Milk Scheme V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2006] 98 ITD 306 (Pune ITAT), • Mother Dairy India Ltd. V. Income-tax Officer [2009] 28 SOT 42 (Delhi ITAT) • Fosters India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2008] 117 TTJ…

N C Shaw and Co Beverages Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Circle 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1925/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

…deduct TDS on such payments. • All India Radio Commercial Broadcasting Service Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India Akashvani Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi V. Income-tax officer [2006] 8 SOT 513 (Delhi ITAT) • Bharti Airtel Limited vs DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33 (Karnataka) • Additional Commissioner of Income-tax V. Pearl Bottling (P.) Ltd. ([2011] 10 taxmann.com 47 (Visakhapatnam ITAT) • Government Milk Scheme V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2006] 98 ITD 306 (Pune ITAT), • Mother Dairy India Ltd. V. Income-tax Officer [2009] 28 SOT 42 (Delhi ITAT) • Fosters India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2008] 117 TTJ…

Tata Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-76(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tata Vs. Assistant Commissioner Teleserviceslimited New Of Income Tax Circle 76(1) Delhi Districtcentral Laxmi Taxation Department Nagar New Delhi 110092 M/S Tata Teleservices Limited 2A, Old Ishwar Nahar Mathura Road New Delhi 110065 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 191Section 194Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…ven by the Applicant to its Channel Partners at the time of sale of Starter Kits and RCVs as commission/brokerage; iv. That the Ld. CIT (A) completely erred in not appreciating that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Bharti Airtel Lid. vs. CIT, Anr., (2015) 372 ITR 33 (Karn) while considering an identical issue in the facts of the Appellant has inter alia held that 'right to service can be sold' and as such the supply of SIM cards and recharge vouchers can be on the basis of principal to principal and in the facts of the case, there would not be a relationship of agency. Similar view has been taken by the Rajas…

Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5145/DEL/2011[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024
For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha (PCIT)
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 9(1)(vii)

…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 64 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…

Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5143/DEL/2011[2008-09 (F.Y.-2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vodafone Mobile Assistant Commissioner Services Limited Of Income Tax Circle C-45, 51(1) Okhla Indusrial Area, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Phase Ii, Distt. Centre, New Delhi- 110020 Laxmi Nagar, Pan: Aaacs4457Q New Delhi. Appellant : Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vodafone Mobile Joint Commissioner Of Services Limited Income Tax Circle 51(1) C-45, Aayakar Bhawan, Okhla Indusrial Area, Vs. Distt. Centre, Phase Ii, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi- 110020 New Delhi. Pan: Aaacs4457Q Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha (PCIT)
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 9(1)(vii)

…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…

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6671/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Date
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 40

…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 ld. DR hereinabove. Effectively Pune Tribunal adopted the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The ld. DR relied on para 64…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4513/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

…al factual matrix involved and considered by Hon'ble Tribunals at Jaipur and Karnataka in Assessee's own case and relying on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court judgement in the case of Bharti Airtel limited and others vs. DCIT and others reported in 372 ITR 33, which has discussed the legal position in detail and has also considered the previous Delhi High Court and Kerela High Court judgements which are against the Assessee, the CIT(A) had allowed this ground of appeal and deleted the disallowance of Rs. 347,80,25,095/-. Though this issue has been stated to be covered in assessee‟s own case in followin…

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4318/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

…al factual matrix involved and considered by Hon'ble Tribunals at Jaipur and Karnataka in Assessee's own case and relying on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court judgement in the case of Bharti Airtel limited and others vs. DCIT and others reported in 372 ITR 33, which has discussed the legal position in detail and has also considered the previous Delhi High Court and Kerela High Court judgements which are against the Assessee, the CIT(A) had allowed this ground of appeal and deleted the disallowance of Rs. 347,80,25,095/-. Though this issue has been stated to be covered in assessee‟s own case in followin…

Quest Online, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…see merely acted as a facilitator receiving the payment of on one hand and passing the same to the other parties under the MOU on the other. The assessee relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 372 ITR 33(Kar) and CIT(TDS) vs. Super Religare Labortories Ltd. reported in 284 Taxman 657 (Bom) which relate to the TDS on sale of SIM card by the middleman wherein the Hon’ble Courts have held that the transaction was between the manufacturer and the retailer as principal to principal through the distributor and the payment cannot be treated to have been…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Mphasis Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/443/2022HC Karnataka01 Apr 2024

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260

…- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB ITA No. 443 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.443 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1) 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095 …APPELLANTS…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Mphasis Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/444/2022HC Karnataka01 Apr 2024

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260

…- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB ITA No. 444 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1) 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095 …APPELLANTS…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Mphasis Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/442/2022HC Karnataka01 Apr 2024

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260

…- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB ITA No. 442 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.442 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1) 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095 …APPELLAN…

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1121/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80Section 80I

…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 ld. DR hereinabove. Effectively Pune Tribunal adopted the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The ld. DR relied on para 64 of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and argued that it is against assessee for the first 7 months since d…

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. JCIT TDS Indore, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 264/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniidea Cellular Ltd. Jcit 139-140 Electronics Complex Indore Vs. Pardeshipura Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 194HSection 201Section 271C

…of decisions of this Tribunal there are divergent views of Hon’ble High courts on this issue of liability of the assessee to deduct tax u/s 194H, some of those decisions are as under: In favour of the assessee (i).Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. DCIT Bangalore (2015) 372 ITR 33 (Karnataka) (ii). Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 539 (Rajasthan) (iii). CIT vs. Dex Travel P. Ltd. 172 Taxman 142 (Delhi) In favour of the Revenue (i).Bharti Cellular ltd. Vs. AcIT (2011) 244 ITR 185 (Calcutta) (ii). Vodafone Essar Cellular ltd. Vs. AcIT (2011) 332 ITR 255 (Kerala) 9. It is clear from the above menti…

Md. Nabirul Islam, Murshidabad vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 42, Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 43/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.43/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Md. Nabirul Islam……………...................................................……Appellant Purapara, Raghunathpur, Jangipur, Murshidabad-742201. [Pan: Abkpi1550Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-42, Murshidabad...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sonam Bajoria, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sudip Kr. Bandyopadhyay, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 02, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is As To Whether Tax At Source (Tds) Was Liable To Be Deducted U/S 194 Of The Income Tax Act On The Discount Allowed To Retailers By The Assessee Dealer/Distributors On Sale Of Prepaid Sim Cards/Mobile Recharge Cards & Whether The Lower Authorities Were Justified In Making Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act

Section 194Section 194HSection 201Section 250Section 40

…company is on account of principal-to-principal relationship and not that of principal to agent. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 31/[2015] 228 Taxman 219 (Mag.)/372 ITR 33 and held that the sale of SIM cards/recharge coupons at discounted rate to the distributors was not commission and therefore not liable for deduction of the TDS under section 194H. The Tribunal noted that there was no decision of this Court on this issue on that date. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have tendered the copy of the order passed in…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3674/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

…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 ld. DR hereinabove. Effectively Pune Tribunal adopted the decision of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court. The ld. DR relied on para 64…

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Circle 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

…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 ld. DR hereinabove. Effectively Pune Tribunal adopted the decision of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court. The ld. DR relied on para 64…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Limited, Indore vs. The CIT- (TDS), Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 410/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 May 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194HSection 201Section 271Section 271CSection 273BSection 275(1)(a)

…of decisions of this Tribunal there are divergent views of Hon’ble High courts on this issue of liability of the assessee to deduct tax u/s 194H, some of those decisions are as under: In favour of the assessee (i).Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. DCIT Bangalore (2015) 372 ITR 33 (Karnataka) (ii). Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 539 (Rajasthan) (iii). CIT vs. Dex Travel P. Ltd. 172 Taxman 142 (Delhi) In favour of the Revenue (i).Bharti Cellular ltd. Vs. AcIT (2011) 244 ITR 185 (Calcutta) (ii). Vodafone Essar Cellular ltd. Vs. AcIT (2011) 332 ITR 255 (Kerala) 9. It is clear from the above menti…

M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Indore vs. JCIT TDS, Indore

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 409/IND/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 May 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194HSection 201Section 271Section 271CSection 273BSection 275(1)(a)

…of decisions of this Tribunal there are divergent views of Hon’ble High courts on this issue of liability of the assessee to deduct tax u/s 194H, some of those decisions are as under: In favour of the assessee (i).Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. DCIT Bangalore (2015) 372 ITR 33 (Karnataka) (ii). Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 539 (Rajasthan) (iii). CIT vs. Dex Travel P. Ltd. 172 Taxman 142 (Delhi) In favour of the Revenue (i).Bharti Cellular ltd. Vs. AcIT (2011) 244 ITR 185 (Calcutta) (ii). Vodafone Essar Cellular ltd. Vs. AcIT (2011) 332 ITR 255 (Kerala) 9. It is clear from the above menti…