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.

How many judgments cite Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT?

139 judgments on BharatTax cite Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT (372 ITR 33), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 40(a)(ia), Section 194H, Section 35ABB, Section 37(1), Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3).

Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT (372 ITR 33)

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3017/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MalaviyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…ay 2016, in case of M/s. Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.2043/ Mum./2014 and Ors. For assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12. Further, he submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v/s DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33, wherein, assessee’s group company viz. Tata Teleservices Ltd. was also a party, 10 Tata Teleservices (M) Ltd. upon considering similar nature of transaction has held that the nature of transaction between the assessee and its distributors being on principal–to–principal basis the trade discount given to the distributor is not in the nature of co…

ACIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Teleservices (M) Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5031/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MalaviyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…ay 2016, in case of M/s. Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.2043/ Mum./2014 and Ors. For assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12. Further, he submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v/s DCIT [2015] 372 ITR 33, wherein, assessee’s group company viz. Tata Teleservices Ltd. was also a party, 10 Tata Teleservices (M) Ltd. upon considering similar nature of transaction has held that the nature of transaction between the assessee and its distributors being on principal–to–principal basis the trade discount given to the distributor is not in the nature of co…

DCIT TDS 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Business Channels Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in both the years are allowed

ITA 7047/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…High Court. 9. This issue is covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's common judgement in the cases of Bharti Airtel Limited, Tata Teleservices Limited and Voadfone South Limited, reported as Bharti Airtel Limited vs. DCIT [(2015) 372 ITR 33 (Kar)] wherein their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: "62. In the appeals before us, the assessees sell prepaid cards/vouchers to the distributors. At the time of the assessee selling these pre-paid cards for a consideration to the distributor, the distributor does not earn any income. In fact, rather than earning income, distribut…

ITO, Ward - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Progro Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1373/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 1373/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward 3(1)...............................……………….....................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Room No. 17, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Progro Stocks Pvt. Ltd.,...................……………………………………………Respondent 9/2, Lalbazar Street, Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aabcp 5332 J] Appearances By: Shri S.M. Tauheed, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 1, Kolkata Dated 26.04.2017 & In The Solitary Ground Raised Therein, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 2,16,006/- Made By The A.O. Under Section 14A Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 20.03.2013 Declaring Its Total Income At Nil. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed By The A.O. That The Assessee Company Has Made Substantial Investment In Unquoted Shares. Since The Income From The Said Investment In The Form Of Dividend Was Exempt From Tax, The Assessee Was Called Upon By The A.O. To Explain As To Why

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…on record. As agreed by the learned representative of both the sides, the solitary issue involved in this appeal of the revenue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee inter alia by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. 373 ITR 33 wherein it was held that disallowance under section 14A could not be made if no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Respectfully following the said decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we upheld the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. under section 14A and dismiss…

DCIT International Taxation, Coimbatore vs. Habasit Lakoka Private Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1526/CHNY/2017[2016-17(27Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1525 & 1526/Chny/2017 Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dcit, International Taxation Circle, Coimbatore -Vs- M/S Habasit Lakoka Pvt. Ltd. [Tan: Cmbh03020D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. C.Yamuna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri C.S.K. Prabhu, CA

Section 139A(8)Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

…ys BPO Ltd.,(supra), held an identical view after placing reliance on the above decision of Pune ITAT and other decisions viz. Bosch Ltd v. ITO 2013 141 ITO 38 Bang-Trib) and Karnataka High Court's decision in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd v Deputy CIT (2015) 372 ITR 33. In this decision, the ITAT also held that adjustment made in intimation u/s.200A by applying a higher tax rate is not an adjustment which is permissible as per provisions of Sec.200A as it is a debatable issue. 4.2 In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the adjustment made in intimation u/s.200A by applying 20% rate for determining TOS…

DCIT International Taxation, Coimbatore vs. Habasit Lakoka Private Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1525/CHNY/2017[2015-16(27Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1525 & 1526/Chny/2017 Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dcit, International Taxation Circle, Coimbatore -Vs- M/S Habasit Lakoka Pvt. Ltd. [Tan: Cmbh03020D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. C.Yamuna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri C.S.K. Prabhu, CA

Section 139A(8)Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

…ys BPO Ltd.,(supra), held an identical view after placing reliance on the above decision of Pune ITAT and other decisions viz. Bosch Ltd v. ITO 2013 141 ITO 38 Bang-Trib) and Karnataka High Court's decision in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd v Deputy CIT (2015) 372 ITR 33. In this decision, the ITAT also held that adjustment made in intimation u/s.200A by applying a higher tax rate is not an adjustment which is permissible as per provisions of Sec.200A as it is a debatable issue. 4.2 In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the adjustment made in intimation u/s.200A by applying 20% rate for determining TOS…

ACIT, Cir-3(TDS), Kolkata vs. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vodafone South Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1072/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 194HSection 201Section 250Section 271C

…d under section 194H of the Act. Similarly we find that the ownership of the recharge coupons gets transferred to the distributor on the sale of recharge coupons. In this connection, we also rely in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. CIT & ANR.reported in 372 ITR 33 (Kar) (supra) where the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has decided the issue in favour of assessee. Similarly Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of various parties where the assessee was also a party has decided the issue in favour of 3 I.T.A. No. 1071/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No. 1071/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vodaf…

ACIT, Cir-3(TDS), Kolkata vs. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vodafone East Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1071/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 194HSection 201Section 250Section 271C

…d under section 194H of the Act. Similarly we find that the ownership of the recharge coupons gets transferred to the distributor on the sale of recharge coupons. In this connection, we also rely in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. CIT & ANR.reported in 372 ITR 33 (Kar) (supra) where the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has decided the issue in favour of assessee. Similarly Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of various parties where the assessee was also a party has decided the issue in favour of 3 I.T.A. No. 1071/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No. 1071/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vodaf…