How many judgments cite CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd.?

163 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (319 ITR 139), spanning 2011 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 9(1)(vii), Section 143(3), Section 194J, Section 143(1), Section 195, Section 147.

CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd.

319 ITR 139High Court2009#600 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. authority for?

Technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 require human intervention at the time of service delivery. Consequently, payments for telecom services like roaming, mobile data, connectivity, or interconnect/port access do not constitute 'fees for technical services' and are not liable for TDS under Section 194J.

163

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. · Section 9(1)(vii) · Section 194J · fees for technical services · FTS · human intervention · human interface · roaming charges · interconnect access · mobile data · connectivity · TDS liability

Also reported as

175 Taxmann 573

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vii)Section 143(3)Section 194J Section 143(1)Section 195 Section 147 Section 148 Section 201(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 35abb section 35dd use of equipment section 9(l)section 194j section 44bb section 195(2)section 194h section 44b section 40a(ia)section 9(1)(vi)section 9(1)(vii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd.

KYOCERA DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS ASIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KYOCERA MITA ASIA LIMITED),HONGKONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTT TAX 2(1)(2), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1664/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…the Act read with Article 13 of India Hong Kong DTAA. The ld AR relied on the following decision for non-taxability of reimbursement as FTS: 1.Cooper Standard Automotive India (P.) Ltd. v/s ACIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 200 2.CIT v/s Bharti Cellular Ltd [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Del) (HC) 3.Skycell Communication Ltd v/s Dy.CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras) Page 9 of 27 ITA No. 380, 3546/DEL/2023 & 1664/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23] Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Vs. ACIT 19. Per contra, with respect to Ground no 2, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. With respect to Ground No. 2, the…

KYOCERA DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS ASIA LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 380/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

KYOCERA DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS ASIA LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS KYOCERA MITA ASIA LIMITED),HONG KONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3546/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

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

…lve any human intervention and, hence, such amount could not be considered as 'fees for technical services.' In support of its contention, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139/[2008] 175 Taxman 573 (Delhi) in which it has been held that the services rendered by MTNL and other telecommunication companies qua inter-connection do not involve any human interface and, hence, the same cannot be regarded as a 'technical service' so as to require deduction of tax at source u/s. 194J of the Act. Not convinced, the AO treated su…

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

…any human intervention and, hence, such\namount could not be considered as 'fees for technical services.' In\nsupport of its contention, the assessee relied on the judgment of the\nHon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd.\n[2009] 319 ITR 139/[2008] 175 Taxman 573 (Delhi) in which it has\nbeen held that the services rendered by MTNL and other\ntelecommunication companies qua inter-connection do not involve\nany human interface and, hence, the same cannot be regarded as a\n'technical service' so as to require deduction of tax at source u/s.\n194J of the Act. Not convinced, the AO treat…

FORCEPOINT INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 976/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta CIT- DR

Section 139(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…would also agree with the assessee that there is no human intervention involved in the software sold in India, taking the receipts of the assessee outside the ambit of technical services, in line with the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Bharti Cellular 319 ITR 139 (Del) PB 378 PB 386 & 388 as confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court 330 ITR 239 (SC), wherein it was held that the technical services described in Section 9(1)(vii) read with explanation 2 would have to mean services rendered by human and that at the time of delivery of service there had to be a human interface. 22. We also find on page 20 of the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 509/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…to paragraph 6.1 to 6.5 of the said order of the ITAT, wherein the Hon’ble ITAT held that the issue of managerial, technical and consultancy service had been duly discussed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Limited (2009) 319 ITR 139 and the findings of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had been recorded by the Hon’ble Bombay Tribunal in the case of Siemens Limited. After noting down the observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Hon’ble Tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee, by holding that where there is no human element involved in testing, the same ca…

ACIT, CIRCLE-33(1), NEW DELHI vs. LUCKY EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 7113/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: - 5502/Del/2017 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) ITA No:- 7113/Del/2017 (Assessment Year- 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner of M/s Lucky Exports, Income Tax, Vs. UG-28, Som Dutt Circle-33(1), Chamber-II, New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. PAN No: AAAFL1147P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR) Assessee by : Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Adv. Date of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM: Both these appeals ha…

ACIT, CIRCLE-33(1), NEW DELHI vs. LUCKY EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 5502/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)

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)

…same are not fees for technical services and the same does\nnot require deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:\na. Skycell Communication Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras HC)\nb. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi HC)\nc. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC)\nd. CIT vs. Vodafone South Limited (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.) [2016] (241 Taxman\n497) (Karnataka)\ne. CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2023] 456 ITR 691 (Del. HC)\nf. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi ITAT)\n15. The ld. DR for the revenue on the ot…

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)

…same are not fees for technical services and the same does\nnot require deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:\na. Skycell Communication Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras HC)\nb. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi HC)\nc. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC)\nd. CIT vs. Vodafone South Limited (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.) [2016] (241 Taxman\n497) (Karnataka)\ne.\nCIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2023] 456 ITR 691 (Del. HC)\nf. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi ITAT)\n\n15. The ld. DR for the revenue on the…

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

ITA 2180/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…same are not fees for technical services and the same does\nnot require deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:\na. Skycell Communication Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras HC)\nb. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi HC)\nc. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC)\nd. CIT vs. Vodafone South Limited (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.) [2016] (241 Тахтапп\n497) (Karnataka)\ne. CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2023] 456 ITR 691 (Del. HC)\nf. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi ITAT)\n15. The ld. DR for the revenue on the o…

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)

…same are not fees for technical services and the same does\nnot require deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:\na. Skycell Communication Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras HC)\nb. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi HC)\nc. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC)\nd. CIT vs. Vodafone South Limited (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.) [2016] (241 Taxmann\n497) (Karnataka)\ne. CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2023] 456 ITR 691 (Del. HC)\nf. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi ITAT)\n15. The ld. DR for the revenue on the o…

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)

…same are not fees for technical services and the same does\nnot require deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:\na. Skycell Communication Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras HC)\nb. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi HC)\nc. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC)\nd. CIT vs. Vodafone South Limited (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.) [2016] (241 Taxmann\n497) (Karnataka)\ne. CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2023] 456 ITR 691 (Del. HC)\nf. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi ITAT)\n15. The ld. DR for the revenue on the o…

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)

…same are not fees for technical services and the same does\nnot require deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:\na. Skycell Communication Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras HC)\nb. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi HC)\nc. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC)\nd. CIT vs. Vodafone South Limited (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.) [2016] (241 Тахтапп\n497) (Karnataka)\ne. CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2023] 456 ITR 691 (Del. HC)\nf. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi ITAT)\n15. The ld. DR for the revenue on the o…

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

ITA 1776/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…same are not fees for technical services and the same does\nnot require deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:\na. Skycell Communication Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras HC)\nb. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi HC)\nc. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC)\nd. CIT vs. Vodafone South Limited (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.) [2016] (241 Taxmann\n497) (Karnataka)\ne. CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2023] 456 ITR 691 (Del. HC)\nf. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi ITAT)\n15. The ld. DR for the revenue on the o…

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)

…same are not fees for technical services and the same does\nnot require deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:\na. Skycell Communication Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras HC)\nb. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi HC)\nc. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC)\nd. CIT vs. Vodafone South Limited (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.) [2016] (241 Тахтапп\n497) (Karnataka)\ne. CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2023] 456 ITR 691 (Del. HC)\nf. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi ITAT)\n15. The ld. DR for the revenue on the o…

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)

…same are not fees for technical services and the same does\nnot require deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:\na. Skycell Communication Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras HC)\nb. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi HC)\nc. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC)\nd. CIT vs. Vodafone South Limited (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.) [2016] (241 Taxmann\n497) (Karnataka)\ne. CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2023] 456 ITR 691 (Del. HC)\nf. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi ITAT)\n15. The ld. DR for the revenue on the o…

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)

…same are not fees for technical services and the same does\nnot require deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:\na. Skycell Communication Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Madras HC)\nb. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi HC)\nc. CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC)\nd. CIT vs. Vodafone South Limited (now Vodafone Idea Ltd.) [2016] (241 Taxmann\n497) (Karnataka)\ne. CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2023] 456 ITR 691 (Del. HC)\nf. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi ITAT)\n\n15. The ld. DR for the revenue on the…

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6079/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)

Section 40

…e\nservice provider company for utilization of roaming, mobile data and connectivity\ncould not be termed as technical services, therefore, no TDS is deductable on\nsuch roaming charges. The Hon'ble Delhi Court in assessee's own case CIT vs.\nBharti Cellular, 319 ITR 139 has held that payment for use of services of other\ntelecom operators via interconnect/port access would not fall within the preview\nof payments as provided u/s.194J of the Act, therefore, not liable for deduction\nof tax at source. To further buttress his arguments, the Id. Counsel for the\nassessee placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate…

Showing 1–20 of 163 · Page 1 of 9

...