Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. ITO

178 TTJ 708Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#3127 most cited

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

Payments made for interconnect usage charges to foreign telecom operators are not considered 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, nor are they subject to tax withholding under Section 195 of the Act.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. ITO · Section 9(1)(vi) · Section 195 · royalty · interconnect charges · foreign telecom operators · tax withholding · DTAA · telecom services

Also reported as

47 ITR 418

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 3(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 35ddsection 35abbwaiver of loansection 40a(ia)clarificatory amendmentazadi bachao andolanshort deduction of taxsection 9(1)(vi)section 80ia(4)section 194hsection 194jright to receive

Judgments citing Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. ITO

Owens-Corning Inc. (Through Representative Assessee-Owens-Corning (India)Private Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Internatioal Taxation) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice-&Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012 - 13

For Appellant: Shri J D MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivasa Raghavan S Iyengar
Section 1Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

…yalty should be the payment made to a person who has exclusive right over a thing for allowing another to make use of that thing. Similarly, the case is also covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. ITO (47 ITR 418), wherein it has been held that in order to receive a royalty in respect of allowing the usage or right to use any property including an intellectual property, the owner thereof must have an exclusive right over such property. We note that the technology for manufacture of glass fibre including the use of bushing has been provided by OCNLIC a Dutc…

M/S Vodafone South Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2473/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

M.S Vodafone Mobiles Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2472/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

M/S Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2471/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

M/S Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2470/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

M/S Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2469/BANG/2018[2008-09 ]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-2(1)(It), Bangalore vs. M/S Vodafone South Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 192/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

M/S Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2818/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(2) International Taxation, Bangalore vs. M/S Vodafone South Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1177/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(2) International Taxation, Bangalore vs. M/S Vodafone South Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1176/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Vodafone South Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1313/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Vodafone South Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1312/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Vodafone South Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1367/BANG/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

Vodafone South Limited, Bangalore vs. Dydit, Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1161/BANG/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

Vodafone South Limited, Bangalore vs. Dydit, Bangalore

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1160/BANG/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201

…nd No 1.1 above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law since the learned CIT(A) has held that payments are liable for tax withholding despite the favourable ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited (178 TTJ 708 -dated March 17, 2016), wherein it has been held that interconnect charges paid to foreign carriers are not subject to tax withholding under section 195 of the Act and which has not been challenged by the tax dept. 2. Ground No. 2 - Payments not liable to tax deduction at source 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lear…

Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi

ITA 487/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40Section 72ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…ommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT 332 ITR 340 ii) ITO vs. People Interactive(I) P Ltd. ITA No. 2180/Mum/2009 iii) PCIT vs. M. Tech India P. Ltd. 381 ITR 31 (Del HC) iv) CIT vs. Vinzas Solutions India P. Ltd. 292 CTR 332 (Mad HC) v) Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO 178 TTJ 708 (Del Tri.) vi) American Chemical Society vs. DCIT ITA No. 6811/Mum/2017 vii) Rackspace, US Inc. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1634/Del/2016 viii) DCIT vs. Magnon Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 5878/Del/2014 ix) EPRSS Prepaid Recharge Services India (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 52 (Pune – Trib.) x) DDIT vs. Savvis Communication Corporation The L…

M/S Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4389/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40Section 72ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…ommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DIT 332 ITR 340 ii) ITO vs. People Interactive(I) P Ltd. ITA No. 2180/Mum/2009 iii) PCIT vs. M. Tech India P. Ltd. 381 ITR 31 (Del HC) iv) CIT vs. Vinzas Solutions India P. Ltd. 292 CTR 332 (Mad HC) v) Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO 178 TTJ 708 (Del Tri.) vi) American Chemical Society vs. DCIT ITA No. 6811/Mum/2017 vii) Rackspace, US Inc. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1634/Del/2016 viii) DCIT vs. Magnon Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 5878/Del/2014 ix) EPRSS Prepaid Recharge Services India (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 52 (Pune – Trib.) x) DDIT vs. Savvis Communication Corporation The L…

DCIT (TDS), Chandigahr vs. M/S Idea Cellular Ltd., Mohali

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 21/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, CA
Section 201(1)

…ed November 06, 2015) (T Bang) 8 M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No. 320 to 329 / Mds / 2014, dated July 20, 2015) (Chennai) 9 Vodafone East Limited vs. Additional CIT (61 taxmann.com 263) (Kol.) 10 Bharti Airtel Ltd vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) (178 TTJ 708) (TDel) 11 DCIT vs Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd (ITA No. I950/Del/2014)(TDel) 12 Tata Teleservices Ltd vs ITO (3328 to 3332/Del/2015)(TDel) 2.1. Accordingly, it was his submission that in case the Revenue seeks time to go through the decisions, he would pose no objection but it may be communicated to him at the outset as he is traveling from outs…