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

155 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd. (325 ITR 148), spanning 2014 to 2026.

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

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

CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd.

325 ITR 148High Court2010#638 most cited

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

Discounts offered to distributors under a tightly controlled relationship constitute commission and are subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194H of the Income-tax Act.

155

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd. · Idea Cellular · 325 ITR 148 · Section 194H · discounts to distributors · commission · tax deduction at source · TDS on commission · assessee in default · Section 40(a)(ia)

Also reported as

76 Taxmann.com 77189 Taxmann 118

Sections most often in play

Section 194H Section 40(a)(ia)Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 35ABB Section 271(1)(c)Section 35ABA Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 35abb section 194h resulting company section 201(1a)interest under section 201(1a)section 201(1)assessee in default section 194 demerger section 194j enduring benefit section 35

Judgments citing CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd.

M/S. Hamir Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5799/DEL/2015[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana,CIT (D.R.)

Section 201Section 201(3)

…31, 2011. 19. Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, the learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, however, seeks to advance a different line of argument. According to him the action taken by the Department was pursuant to a decision in CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 148 (Delhi) where the amounts paid to the channel partners for the pre-paid cards and other products was held to be "commission" by the court within the meaning of section 194H of the Act. It is stated that it is consequent upon the said decision that the Department issued the impugned notices to these petitioners and that this was permissible in ter…

M/S. Tata Chemical Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT RG. 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5897/MUM/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas and Shri Atul T SuraiyaFor Respondent: Mrs Vidisha Kalra

Section 35E

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "जी ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5897/MUM/2004, (A.Y : 1997-98) M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. DCIT Range 2(2) Bombay House, Mumbai 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai – 400 001 PAN : AAACT4059M ITA NO.7035/MUM/2004, (A.Y :1997-98) DCIT Circle-2(2) Vs. M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bombay House, Room No.545, 5th Floor 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN : AAACT4059M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Res…

ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Entertainment Network (I) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito (Tds)(Osd) Entertainment Network (I) Ltd. 1(2) Trade Garden, Gr. Floor, Kamala बनाम/ R.No.811 K.G. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Vs. Mittal Hospital Marg, Lower Parel,(W) Bldg. Charni Rd Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaace7796G Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe (Dr) Respondent By Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 11/01/2017

Section 192Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…nt has been reduced from the value of price charged by the assessee from the advertising agency on sale of airtime. 5..1O ' The Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax vs. M/s.Idea 14 Entertainment Network Cellular Ltd. reported in 325 ITR 148 has also discussed the definition of commission as well as discount 'and also the difference, between two terms/expression. There is no dispute that there, is no necessity for a formal contract of agency it may be implied which' could arise from the act and conduct of all the parties or situation in which the parties are put as-observed by the Ho…

ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1352/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Section 192Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)

Section 201Section 254Section 40

…. DCIT: 372 ITR 33 (Kar) ii. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. vs. ACIT: 60 taxmann.com 214 (Ahd.) iii. Bharti Hexacom Ltd vs. ITO: 42 ITR(T) 686 (Jaipur) xi. A contrary view has however, been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd.: 325 ITR 148. The matter is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. xii. The aforesaid cleavage of judicial opinion further fortifies the contention of the appellant that the fundamental question as to whether tax is deductible is a highly debatable and vexed legal issue, still to be finally resolved one way or the other. xiii. In view of the…

ITO (TDS) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Tourism Developement Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5232/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri D. Karunakar Raoassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer(Tds)- M/S Maharashtra Tourism 2(3), Development Corporation Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.708, 7Th Floor, Express Tower, 9Th Floor, Vs. Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Madam Cama Road, Hospital Building, Nariman Point, Charni Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm0712G

Section 133ASection 194Section 194HSection 201(1)

…uarantee and the assessee. In another case, in JDS Apparels Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (ITA No.608 of 2014) order dated 18/11/2014 after having a discussion from the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Ahmadabad Stamp Vendor Association, CIT vs Idea Cellular Ltd (2010) 325 ITR 148 (Del.) held that the amount retained by the bank is a fee charged by them for rendering bank services and cannot be treated as commission or brokerage paid in the course of use of any services by a person acting on behalf of another for buying and selling the goods and thus, the banking services cannot be covered and treated as services rendered…

DCIT TDS 1(1), Mumbai vs. Cleartrip Travel Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5049/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit(Osd)(Tds), Range-1, M/S Cleartrip Travel Room No.803, Services Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg. Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Vs. Charni Road (W), Dtc Building, Sitaram Mumbai-400002 Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011 Pan No.Aaccc6016B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…ntee and the assessee. In another case, in JDS Apparels Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (ITA No.608 of 2014) order dated 18/11/2014 after having a discussion from the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Ahmadabad Stamp Vendor Association, CIT vs Idea Cellular Ltd (2010) 325 ITR 148 (Del.) held that the amount retained by the bank is a fee charged by them for rendering bank services and cannot be treated as commission or brokerage paid in the course of 17 M/s Cleartrip Travel Services Pvt. Ltd use of any services by a person acting on behalf of another for buying and selling the goods and thus, the banking services cann…

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6726/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40a

…law and on facts in not appreciating that assessee was selling pre-paid SIMs and recharge vouchers of RCOM to the distributors and the services rendered by the distributors were similar to services where High Courts in the case of CIT vs Idea Cellular Ltd., (325 ITR 148), Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd vs ACIT and Bharti Cellular Ltd vs ACIT (2011) 12 Taxman 30 (Cal) as reported have held that the amount retained by distributors is in nature of commission and therefore the distributors who collected the amounts of sale proceeds from customers were acting s agent of assessee and therefore TDS was liable to be deduct…

Mahindra Automobile Distributor P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5185/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Shah &For Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 40

…pal- to-principal basis and it would not be open to the Revenue to read into such contract and treat the same as being on principal-agent basis. Before the Hon‟ble High Court counsel appearing for the Revenue relied upon the case of CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd. (325 ITR 148). It was held that the facts of CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd. were „entirely distinguishable from the facts of the present case‟. It was further observed by the Hon‟ble court – “A perusal of the agreement shows that the assessee had permitted the distributor to sell its products in a specified area. The distributor was to exclusively deal in the prod…

Ngc Network Asia Llc, Mumbai vs. Jdit (It) RG 4, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7631/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amit Shukla, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं अमित शुक्ऱा, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7994/Mum/2011 & Ita No.7631/Mum/2012 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ Ngc Network Asia Llc, Joint Director Of Income Tax C/O S R Batliboi & Co., (International Taxation), Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Range-4, Senapati Bapat Marg, Scindia House, Tulsi Pipe Road, Ballard Estate, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400038. Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan: Aabcn3136G अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant By Shri Porus Kaka & Ms.Sheetal Shah प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Rspondent By Ms.Vandana Sagar सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 4.9.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (Am) These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Orders Passed For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 In Pursuance Of Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp). Since Issues Urged In These Two Appeals Are Identical In Nature, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.

Section 9(1)(vi)

…ies have taken the view that they still continue the “principal to agent” relationship even under the new agreement also. The nature of Principal- agent relationship came to be examined by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd (325 ITR 148), wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has observed as under:- “19. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Singapore Airlines Ltd. [2009-ITOL-183-HC-DEL-IT] analyses the aforesaid definition in the following manner: "16. It is clear from the definition that an agency comes into existence where one person is vested with the authority o…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Idea Celluar Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 758/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…Cellular Ltd. Page 8 of 22 33. The learned AR of the assessee has pointed out that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd.(assessee’s own case) reported in 325 ITR 148 has held that though the service cannot be sold and be rendered only however, the right to service can be sold. Thus, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that what is sold by the assessee to distributors is right to service. Once the distributor pays for service and the service provider supplies SIM card or recharge coupon, the distributor acq…

M/S Idea Cellular Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 651/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

M/S Idea Cellular Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 648/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Corporation Bank, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1264/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

…stent and uniformly applied while interpreting clause (i) of the Explanation to Section 194H of the Act. Appropriate in this regard would be to refer to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Idea Cellular Limited, (2010) 325 ITR 148 (Delhi) wherein Explanation clause (i) to Section 194H of the Act had come up for consideration and on interpretation it was held that it would apply only if payment was received or receivable directly or indirectly by a person acting on behalf of another person for (i) services rendered (not being professional) and (ii) for any services in the c…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Jds Apparels Private Limited

ITA/608/2014HC Delhi18 Nov 2014

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194DSection 194HSection 260ASection 40

…Page 11 of 15 Explanation to Section 194H of the Act. Appropriate in this regard would be to refer to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Idea Cellular Limited, (2010) 325 ITR 148 (Delhi) wherein Explanation clause (i) to Section 194H of the Act had come up for consideration and on interpretation it was held that it would apply only if payment was received or receivable directly or indirectly by a person acting on behalf of another person for (i) services rendered (not being professional) and (ii) for any services in…