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

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Teleservices (Mah) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3874/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S Tata Teleservices Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Mah.) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, D-26, Ttc Industrial Mk Road, Mumbai Estate, Midc 400020. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai – 4000703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1458C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vinay Sinha.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Hiten Chande.Ar Date Of Hearing 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Vinay Sinha.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Hiten Chande.AR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 32Section 40

…issue. However, it is seen that the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors v/s DCIT, in ITAs no.637 & 644 of 2013, dated 14th August 2014, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 31 (Karnataka)/[2015] 228 Taxman 219 (Karnataka) (MAG.) / [2015] 372 ITR 33 (Karnataka)/[2015] 274 CTR 213 (Karnataka), wherein the assessee was also a party, in ITA no. 158 of 2013, is in favour of the appellant. Relying on this decision, the 'D' Bench of the jurisdictional Tribunal has, in the case of the appellant, in ITA Nos 2043, 2044 & 2045/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2011-12, in context of proceedings u/s 201 of t…

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…sence of principal-agent relationship between the parties: Decision Forum Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Supreme Court Association10 348 ITR 378(SC) Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors High Court, Association11 Gujarat 257 ITR 202 (Guj) Bharti Airtel Ltd12 High Court, Karnataka 372 ITR 33(Kar) Kerala State Stamp Vendors High Court, Association13 Kerala 282 ITR 7 (Ker) IT(TP)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Page 31 of 33 33. It was submitted that the mere nomenclature does not determine the nature of transaction. In this regard it was pointed out that it is an undisputed fact that the AO and DRP treated the special discount allowed as Commissio…

Krishnaswamy Yoganandan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 774/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR V. Sreenivasan
Section 194HSection 40

…nclined to uphold findings of the learned CIT(A) and reject arguments taken by the assessee. 10. Insofar as various case laws relied upon by the assessee, including decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharathi Airtel Vs. DCIT (2015) 372 ITR 33 and decision of the ITAT., Delhi Benches in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs.CIT (supra), we find that although the Hon’ble High Court and ITAT., Delhi Benches has taken a different view on the issue, but because the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT., Chennai has taken a view against the assessee, we prefer to follow decision of the ITAT., Chennai on this…

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 3168/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…sidered nor dealt with any of the orders cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee. 38. The next decision cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee is the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 33/228 Taxman 219 (Mag.)/[2014] 52 taxmann.com 31. In this decision the question was whether the difference between the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) and the price at which prepaid cards used in cellular phones are sold to a dealer is commission on which Bharati Airtel Ltd., had to deduct tax at source u/s. 194-H of the Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High C…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Herbal Life International India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 2587/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…sidered nor dealt with any of the orders cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee. 38. The next decision cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee is the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 33/228 Taxman 219 (Mag.)/[2014] 52 taxmann.com 31. In this decision the question was whether the difference between the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) and the price at which prepaid cards used in cellular phones are sold to a dealer is commission on which Bharati Airtel Ltd., had to deduct tax at source u/s. 194-H of the Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High C…

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2220/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…sidered nor dealt with any of the orders cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee. 38. The next decision cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee is the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 33/228 Taxman 219 (Mag.)/[2014] 52 taxmann.com 31. In this decision the question was whether the difference between the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) and the price at which prepaid cards used in cellular phones are sold to a dealer is commission on which Bharati Airtel Ltd., had to deduct tax at source u/s. 194-H of the Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High C…

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2219/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…sidered nor dealt with any of the orders cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee. 38. The next decision cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee is the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 33/228 Taxman 219 (Mag.)/[2014] 52 taxmann.com 31. In this decision the question was whether the difference between the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) and the price at which prepaid cards used in cellular phones are sold to a dealer is commission on which Bharati Airtel Ltd., had to deduct tax at source u/s. 194-H of the Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High C…

Dy CIT (TDS)2(3), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (Now Known As Vodafone Idea Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 42/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit (Tds)-2(3), M/S Idea Cellular Limited Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, (Now Known As Vodafone Idea K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Limited), Bldg., Charni Road (W), Vs. 3Rd Floor, Windsor, Cst Road, Mumbai - 400002 Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400098 Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani (Dr) Shri Ronak Doshi, Ms. Vrushti Galani Assessee By : (Ars) Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2021 Date Of Order: 17/01/2022

For Appellant: (ARs)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani (DR)
Section 1Section 194HSection 201(1)

…lowed to the distributors by the Respondent — assessee 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 Bharati Airtel Ltd. vs. DCIT [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 to deduct 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 Incom…

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…red after the order passed by the Tribunal also reiterated the aforesaid legal positions: i. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendor Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202 - affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 348 ITR 378. ii. Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT: [2015] 372 ITR 33 (Karnataka HC) iii. PCIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer And Chemicals Ltd.:[2019] 266 Taxman 19 (Gujarat)(MAG) iv. CIT (TDS) v. OCM India Ltd. – [2018] 408 ITR 369 (P&H) v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: [2018] 402 ITR 539 (Raj. HC) 34. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the appellant was under the bonafide belief that…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S Tata Teleservices Ltd., Meerut

The appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1686/DEL/2011[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…that this very issue has been decided by the Hon’ble High Courts and Co- ordinate Benches of the ITAT including the judgment of the Hon’ble ITO vs. M/s Tata Teleservices Limited Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. [2015] 372 ITR 33 (Karn). The Ld. Authorized Representative also referred to an order of Jaipur Bench of Tribunal in a related company of the assessee in the case of TTSL vs. ITO, Jaipur reported in [2016] 71 Taxman.com 285 (Jaipur). The Ld. AR further submitted that in the case of DCIT vs. Idea Cellular in ITA No.852/Del/2015, vide order dated 01.05.2018, the…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S Tata Teleservices Ltd., Meerut

The appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1685/DEL/2011[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…that this very issue has been decided by the Hon’ble High Courts and Co- ordinate Benches of the ITAT including the judgment of the Hon’ble ITO vs. M/s Tata Teleservices Limited Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. [2015] 372 ITR 33 (Karn). The Ld. Authorized Representative also referred to an order of Jaipur Bench of Tribunal in a related company of the assessee in the case of TTSL vs. ITO, Jaipur reported in [2016] 71 Taxman.com 285 (Jaipur). The Ld. AR further submitted that in the case of DCIT vs. Idea Cellular in ITA No.852/Del/2015, vide order dated 01.05.2018, the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Idea Cellular Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA/694/2019HC Karnataka12 Aug 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

Section 133ASection 194HSection 260

…ct?” 5. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the assessee that a similar issue has been decided in Bharti Airtel Limited .vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 18(1), Bangalore [(2015) 372 ITR 33(Karnataka)] in favour of the assessee. The operative paragraphs of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court as contained by Paragraphs 61 to 65 reads as under: “61 .However, in the first instance, if the assessee accounted for only Rs. 80 and on payment of Rs. 80, he hands over the pre-paid card prescribing the MRP as Rs. 100…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Idea Cellular Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA/693/2019HC Karnataka12 Aug 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

Section 133ASection 194HSection 260

…ct?” 5. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the assessee that a similar issue has been decided in Bharti Airtel Limited .vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 18(1), Bangalore [(2015) 372 ITR 33(Karnataka)] in favour of the assessee. The operative paragraphs of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court as contained by Paragraphs 61 to 65 reads as under: “61 .However, in the first instance, if the assessee accounted for only Rs. 80 and on payment of Rs. 80, he hands over the pre-paid card prescribing the MRP as Rs. 100…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Idea Cellular Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA/692/2019HC Karnataka12 Aug 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

Section 133ASection 194HSection 260

…ct?” 5. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the assessee that a similar issue has been decided in Bharti Airtel Limited .vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 18(1), Bangalore [(2015) 372 ITR 33(Karnataka)] in favour of the assessee. The operative paragraphs of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court as contained by Paragraphs 61 to 65 reads as under: “61 .However, in the first instance, if the assessee accounted for only Rs. 80 and on payment of Rs. 80, he hands over the pre-paid card prescribing the MRP as Rs. 100…

M/S. Bharti Cellular Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 735/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2021AY 2004-05
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 40

…have held that the provisions of section 194H are not attracted on the discount enjoyed by the distributors of prepaid cards. Our attention was drawn to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. as reported in [2015] 372 ITR 33 (Kar.) and on another judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case Vodafone ESSAR Cellular Ltd. Vs. ACIT as reported in [2011] 332 ITR 255 had duly been considered and it had been held that the provisions of section 194H were not attracted to the discount enjoyed by the distributors on the prepaid cards. 3.4 On merits of the disallowance…

Vodafone Idea Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), Karnal

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2467/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…at the Hon’ble Delhi, Kolkata, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts had decided the issue following the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Limited (supra), while the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. VS. DCIT (372 ITR 33)]; and Rajasthan High Court in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Vs. CIT (402 ITR 539) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Vodafone itself. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the absence of any decision of the jurisdictional High Court, Punjab & Haryana, in terms of the settled position of law, a view in favour o…

Vodafone Idea Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), Karnal

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2466/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…at the Hon’ble Delhi, Kolkata, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts had decided the issue following the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Limited (supra), while the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. VS. DCIT (372 ITR 33)]; and Rajasthan High Court in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Vs. CIT (402 ITR 539) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Vodafone itself. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the absence of any decision of the jurisdictional High Court, Punjab & Haryana, in terms of the settled position of law, a view in favour o…

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Karnal

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 120/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…at the Hon’ble Delhi, Kolkata, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts had decided the issue following the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Limited (supra), while the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. VS. DCIT (372 ITR 33)]; and Rajasthan High Court in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Vs. CIT (402 ITR 539) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Vodafone itself. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the absence of any decision of the jurisdictional High Court, Punjab & Haryana, in terms of the settled position of law, a view in favour o…

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Karnal

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 119/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…at the Hon’ble Delhi, Kolkata, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts had decided the issue following the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Limited (supra), while the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. VS. DCIT (372 ITR 33)]; and Rajasthan High Court in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Vs. CIT (402 ITR 539) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Vodafone itself. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the absence of any decision of the jurisdictional High Court, Punjab & Haryana, in terms of the settled position of law, a view in favour o…

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Karnal

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 118/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…at the Hon’ble Delhi, Kolkata, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts had decided the issue following the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Idea Cellular Limited (supra), while the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. VS. DCIT (372 ITR 33)]; and Rajasthan High Court in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Vs. CIT (402 ITR 539) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Vodafone itself. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the absence of any decision of the jurisdictional High Court, Punjab & Haryana, in terms of the settled position of law, a view in favour o…