Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (1.57 seconds)
Documents citing Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2015

Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd vs Union Of India on 30 May, 2025

35. On behalf of petitioners reliance has rightly been placed upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 68 of the judgment in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India, (2015) 12 SCC 1 in support of the proposition that upon receipt of a recommendation from TRAI if the Government comes to a prima facie conclusion that a recommendation cannot be accepted or needs certain modification, the Government is required to refer the matter back to TRAI for reconsideration.
Telecom Disputes Settlement Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharti Airtel Ltd And Anr vs Union Of India, Delhi on 23 December, 2020

33. Having given the aforesaid finding with regard to the main issue relating to condition (e), it is further declared and made clear that following the ratio and findings given by this Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Union of India on 19.03.2019 and again on 31.07.2019, the reliefs granted vide the interims orders in respect of some other prayers in these petitions are found to be appropriate and just. Those interim orders are therefore made absolute. T.P. 31 No.21/2019 is allowed accordingly along with T.P. No.22/2019 in which the main issue relating to condition (e) does not arise. In respect of that petition learned counsel for the respondent had frankly submitted, as recorded in the order passed on 17.08.2020, that the issues in this petition appear to be settled by the judgment of this Tribunal dated 31.07.2020 passed in R.A. No.3/2019 in T.P. No.56/2015 and some other connected matters. Of course, it was highlighted that the said judgment and order has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeal is pending but without any order of stay. As a result both the petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above. Since the combined effect of the interim order and this final order has taken effect as an interim arrangement, it is now clarified that the said effect shall continue subject to added findings and directions in this final judgment.
Telecom Disputes Settlement Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document

L&T Thales Technology Services Private ... vs Dcit International Taxation 2(2), ... on 20 December, 2023

The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra) also took the view that period of limitation prior to the insertion of sec. 201(3) of the Act, w.e.f. 1-4-2010 would be 4 years from the end of the relevant AY. The payees in these cases were also non-resident. The amendment to sec. 201(3) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2009, Finance Act, 2012 and Finance Act, 2014 does not deal with the payments to non-resident and therefore the lay as down in the aforesaid judicial precedents still continue to apply to cases where the payee is a non-resident and therefore in view of the legal principal laid down in the decisions referred to above, the impugned order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is clearly barred by limitation as the order impugned has been passed on 29-7-2013 much after the expiry of period of limitation of 4 years from the end of the relevant AY.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Hamir Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Ito (Tds), New Delhi on 18 September, 2017

Now as pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra) has decided exactly similar issue wherein they have held that period of limitation prescribed under the amended Act is only applicable for the payments made to residents of India and the Parliament has not said anything or remained silent on payments made to non- resident while amending the said provision. We find that the issue before the Hon'ble High Court was that, whether the I.T.A. No.5799/DEL/2015 9 assessee is legally correct in contending that if the Act does not specify a time period, then a reasonable time period should be read into the Act and earlier judgment rendered on this issue was delivered when the Parliament did not made any distinction between the resident and non-resident. Therefore, the remote question will be whether such distinction exists and can one read a reasonable time period into that for the payment made to non- resident also. The Hon'ble High Court while proceeding with the writ petition clarified that the purview of adjudication by the Court was restricted to payments made to non-resident only. The Hon'ble High Court after taking note of the argument put forth by both the parties and also the amendment brought w.e.f. 1/4/2010 in section 201(1) and 201(3), held that the Parliament while amending the Act has consciously prescribed limitation only for the residents. The relevant observation and finding of the Hon'ble High Court in this regard, for the sake of ready reference, are reproduced hereunder:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S Wipro Limited , Bangalore vs The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income ... on 21 June, 2019

98. The contrary judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Bharti Airtel Ltd v. Union of India [(2016) 76 taxmann.com 256] was relied upon by the Ld. AR. The DR relied upon Bhura Exports Ltd [2011] 13 taxmann.com 162 (Calcutta) and Mass Awash (P.) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 306 (Allahabad) In our view the decision of the Special Bench and other judgments apply with equal force in favour of both i.e. resident as well as non-resident providing period of limitation of four years from the end of the financial year for initiation of proceedings on the analogy and principle mentioned in section 147, 148, 153 etc. prior to amendment in law. However there are contrary judgments in favour of the revenue post amendment which does not provide any limitation for initiation of proceedings u/s.201 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 69 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S Google India Private Limited, ... vs Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore on 23 October, 2017

98. The contrary judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Bharti Airtel Ltd v. Union of India [(2016) 76 taxmann.com 256] was relied upon by the Ld. AR. The DR relied upon Bhura Exports Ltd [2011] 13 taxmann.com 162 (Calcutta) and Mass Awash (P.) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 306 (Allahabad) In our view the decision of the Special Bench and other judgments apply with equal force in favour of both i.e resident as well as non-resident providing period of limitation of four years from the end of the financial year for initiation of proceedings on the analogy and principle mentioned in section 147, 148, 153 etc prior to amendment in law. However there are contrary judgments in favour of the revenue post amendment which does not provide any limitation for initiation of proceedings u/s.201 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next