CIT v. Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd.

353 ITR 593Supreme Court of India2013#24769 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35ABB

Judgments citing CIT v. Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd.

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…und that not only it failed to file any cogent rebuttal under section 271(1)(c) Explanation I of the Act which makes it liable for the penalty herein in light of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd. (2016) 327 ITR 516 (Del) and Mak Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 593 (SC), but also the issue herein involves interest on licence fee which itself is in the nature of capital expenditure than a revenue item. 8. All these Revenue’s detailed arguments failed to evoke our concurrence. This is for the precise reasons that the assessee herein had indeed raised the revenue expenditure claim of interest paid on delayed l…

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…und that not only it failed to file any cogent rebuttal under section 271(1)(c) Explanation I of the Act which makes it liable for the penalty herein in light of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd. (2016) 327 ITR 516 (Del) and Mak Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 593 (SC), but also the issue herein involves interest on licence fee which itself is in the nature of capital expenditure than a revenue item. 8. All these Revenue’s detailed arguments failed to evoke our concurrence. This is for the precise reasons that the assessee herein had indeed raised the revenue expenditure claim of interest paid on delayed l…

ITO 22(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAMESH L GAJRA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5539/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

…undisclosed income. He, therefore submitted, the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the penalty is improper. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2013] 353 ITR 593 (SC). 5. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, during the search and seizure operation no incriminating material was found by the Department to show undisclosed income of the assessee. He submitted, only on an estimate basis, some amount was offered as additional income in the statement recorded under section 132(4). However, subsequently…

CIT v. Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd. (353 ITR 593) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax