Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 291 (4.00 seconds)
Documents citing C.I.T.,Delhi vs M/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs Dcit Tds, Indore on 23 April, 2024

58. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharati Cellular Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 139 has given a finding that the facility in question Page 52 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 - AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) provided to the assessee is a "service" and in a broader sense a "communication service". The facility of interconnection is held as providing service which is "technical" in the sense that involved sophisticated technology. Thus the factual finding of the Jurisdictional High Court in this very facts and circumstances is that "technical services" is being provided by the FTO's to the assessee but that such "Technical Service" is not FTS as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act as there is no human intervention. This finding that it is a "service" has not been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India only the factual issue as to whether there was human intervention was set aside to AO. Under such circumstances, the question of taking a contrary view that it is not a "technical services", but a case where the FTO had granted the assesse a right to use a process and the payment is for 'royalty' cannot be countenanced. Applying the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we have to hold that the payment cannot be termed as covered by Explanation 2 read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. On this ground alone the order of the First Appellate Authority has to be upheld. The charge that the payment in question is FTS u/s. 9(1)(vii) excludes the possibility of the payment being royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Both these sections deal with different set of facts situation which cannot co-exist.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Mukesh Sangla, Indore vs The Dcit (Central), Indore on 1 August, 2024

58. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharati Cellular Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 139 has given a finding that the facility in question provided to the assessee is a "service" and in a broader sense a "communication service". The facility of interconnection is held as providing service which is "technical" in the sense that involved sophisticated technology. Thus the factual finding of the Jurisdictional High Court in this very facts and circumstances is that "technical services" is being provided by the FTO's to the assessee but that such "Technical Service" is not FTS as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act as there is no human intervention. This finding that it is a "service" has not been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India only the factual issue as to whether there was human intervention was set aside to AO. Under such circumstances, the question of taking a contrary view that it is not a "technical services", but a case where the FTO had granted the assesse a right to use a process and the payment is for 'royalty' cannot be countenanced. Applying the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we have to hold that the payment cannot be termed as covered by Explanation 2 read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. On this ground alone the order of the First Appellate Authority has to be upheld. The charge that the payment in question is FTS u/s. 9(1)(vii) excludes the possibility of the payment being royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Both these sections deal with different set of facts situation which cannot co-exist.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs The Dcit (Tds), Indore on 1 August, 2024

58. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharati Cellular Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 139 has given a finding that the facility in question provided to the assessee is a "service" and in a broader sense a "communication service". The facility of interconnection is held as providing service which is "technical" in the sense that involved sophisticated technology. Thus the factual finding of the Jurisdictional High Court in this very facts and circumstances is that "technical services" is being provided by the FTO's to the assessee but that such "Technical Service" is not FTS as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act as there is no human intervention. This finding that it is a "service" has not been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India only the factual issue as to whether there was human intervention was set aside to AO. Under such circumstances, the question of taking a contrary view that it is not a "technical services", but a case where the FTO had granted the assesse a right to use a process and the payment is for 'royalty' cannot be countenanced. Applying the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we have to hold that the payment cannot be termed as covered by Explanation 2 read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. On this ground alone the order of the First Appellate Authority has to be upheld. The charge that the payment in question is FTS u/s. 9(1)(vii) excludes the possibility of the payment being royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Both these sections deal with different set of facts situation which cannot co-exist.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs The Dcit (Tds), Indore on 1 August, 2024

58. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharati Cellular Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 139 has given a finding that the facility in question provided to the assessee is a "service" and in a broader sense a "communication service". The facility of interconnection is held as providing service which is "technical" in the sense that involved sophisticated technology. Thus the factual finding of the Jurisdictional High Court in this very facts and circumstances is that "technical services" is being provided by the FTO's to the assessee but that such "Technical Service" is not FTS as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act as there is no human intervention. This finding that it is a "service" has not been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India only the factual issue as to whether there was human intervention was set aside to AO. Under such circumstances, the question of taking a contrary view that it is not a "technical services", but a case where the FTO had granted the assesse a right to use a process and the payment is for 'royalty' cannot be countenanced. Applying the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we have to hold that the payment cannot be termed as covered by Explanation 2 read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. On this ground alone the order of the First Appellate Authority has to be upheld. The charge that the payment in question is FTS u/s. 9(1)(vii) excludes the possibility of the payment being royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Both these sections deal with different set of facts situation which cannot co-exist.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs The Dcit (Tds), Indore on 1 August, 2024

58. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharati Cellular Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 139 has given a finding that the facility in question provided to the assessee is a "service" and in a broader sense a "communication service". The facility of interconnection is held as providing service which is "technical" in the sense that involved sophisticated technology. Thus the factual finding of the Jurisdictional High Court in this very facts and circumstances is that "technical services" is being provided by the FTO's to the assessee but that such "Technical Service" is not FTS as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act as there is no human intervention. This finding that it is a "service" has not been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India only the factual issue as to whether there was human intervention was set aside to AO. Under such circumstances, the question of taking a contrary view that it is not a "technical services", but a case where the FTO had granted the assesse a right to use a process and the payment is for 'royalty' cannot be countenanced. Applying the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we have to hold that the payment cannot be termed as covered by Explanation 2 read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. On this ground alone the order of the First Appellate Authority has to be upheld. The charge that the payment in question is FTS u/s. 9(1)(vii) excludes the possibility of the payment being royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Both these sections deal with different set of facts situation which cannot co-exist.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs The Cit (Tds), Bhopal on 23 April, 2024

58. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharati Cellular Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 139 has given a finding that the facility in question Page 52 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 - AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) provided to the assessee is a "service" and in a broader sense a "communication service". The facility of interconnection is held as providing service which is "technical" in the sense that involved sophisticated technology. Thus the factual finding of the Jurisdictional High Court in this very facts and circumstances is that "technical services" is being provided by the FTO's to the assessee but that such "Technical Service" is not FTS as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act as there is no human intervention. This finding that it is a "service" has not been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India only the factual issue as to whether there was human intervention was set aside to AO. Under such circumstances, the question of taking a contrary view that it is not a "technical services", but a case where the FTO had granted the assesse a right to use a process and the payment is for 'royalty' cannot be countenanced. Applying the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we have to hold that the payment cannot be termed as covered by Explanation 2 read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. On this ground alone the order of the First Appellate Authority has to be upheld. The charge that the payment in question is FTS u/s. 9(1)(vii) excludes the possibility of the payment being royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Both these sections deal with different set of facts situation which cannot co-exist.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sfdc Ireland Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. on 11 March, 2024

7. Managerial and consultancy services‖ and, therefore, necessarily ―technical services‖, would obviously involve services rendered by human efforts. This has been the consistent view taken by the courts including this Court in Bharti Cellular Ltd. [CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 401 : (2011) 330 ITR 239] However, it cannot be lost sight of that modern day scientific and technological developments may tend to blur the specific human element in an otherwise fully automated process by which such services may be provided. The search for a more effective basis, therefore, must be made.‖ W.P.(C) 14636/2023
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs Assessee on 17 March, 2016

"25. Now coming to roaming charges, the contention of the assessee is that human intervention is not required for providing roaming facility, therefore, it cannot be considered to be a technical service. We have gone though the judgment of Apex Court in Bharti Cellular Limited (supra). The Apex Court after examining the provisions of Section 9(l)(vii) of the Act, found that whenever there was a human intervention, it has to be considered as technical service. In the light to the above judgment of the Apex Court, the Department obtained an expert opinion from Sub-Divisional Engineer of BSNL. The Sub- Divisional Engineer clarified that human intervention is required for establishing the physical connectivity between two operators for doing necessary system configurations. After 67 ITA Nos.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 53 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Siemens Ltd , Mumbai vs Assessee on 19 December, 2012

17. Lastly coming to the learned DR's contentions that the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharati Cellular Ltd (Supra) has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is however, seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer with regard to examination and to establish whether technical services provided, involved any kind of human intervention or not during the process of call communication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not reversed or adversely commented on the provisions or principles of law discussed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It was on the fact of the case that the matter was set aside to examine the nature of the technical services and to examine the involvement of the human in the process.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Igate Computer Systems Ltd.( Earlier ... vs Assessee on 30 December, 2014

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (supra) observed that question of human intervention was never raised by the Department either before the CIT(A) or before the Tribunal and was not raised even in the present appeals. However, keeping in mind the higher interest and ramifications of the issue, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine technical expert and decide the same afresh. Further, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Department was not entitled to levy interest under section 201(1A) of the Act or impose penalty for non-deduction of TDS on the facts and 12 ITA Nos.1301 to 1303 and 1616/PN/2013 iGATE Computers Systems Ltd circumstances of the case for the reasons that there was no loss of revenue as taxes had been paid by the recipient and also because the moot question involved in the case was yet to be decided.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next