Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.51 seconds)Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 21 April, 2017
acknowledged the fact that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case
of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v/s DCIT, (supra) has taken a diametrically
opposite view by holding that the sale of prepaid sim cards and RCVs
by the assessee to the distributors are on principal-to-principal basis,
however, the Hon'ble Bench has also expressed the view that they are
bound by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.
M/S Vodafone East Limited (Formerly ... vs Acit, Cir-7, Kolkata, Kolkata on 15 December, 2017
Apart from the terms and conditions of
the agreement, the most important and potent factor which guided the
Bench to conclude that there is a principal-agent relationship between
the assessee and the distributors to attract the provisions of section
194H of the Act is the binding decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh
High Court in case of M/s. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2010]
7 taxmann.com 43. Though, the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench,
16
Tata Teleservices (M) Ltd.
Tata Teleservices Limited, Chennai vs Ito Tds Ii(5), Chennai on 16 March, 2018
The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in case of M/s. Tata Teleservices
Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA no.309/Jp./ 2012, dated 13 th March 2015, following
the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held
that provision of section 194H of the Act is not applicable to the
14
Tata Teleservices (M) Ltd.
Hutchison Telecom East Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 May, 2015
It has
not been demonstrated before us by the learned Departmental
Representative that the agreements on the basis of which the cases of
Hutchison Telecom East Ltd. (supra) and Vodafone Mobile Services
Ltd. (supra) were decided are identical to the agreement between the
present assessee and its distributors. On the contrary, in the
impugned assessment order the Assessing Officer has acknowledged
that the business model of the assessee is different from other mobile
operators, though, of-course, he has attempted to get over it by
observing that the little changes in the business model do not alter the
character of the business at the macro level. Thus, in view of the
aforesaid distinguishing features, the decisions cited by the learned
Departmental Representative, with due respect, are not applicable to
the facts of the present appeals. On the contrary, the decisions relied
upon by the assessee, in our considered opinion, are applicable to the
facts of the assessee's case, since, they are rendered either in the
case of the assessee or its group companies, wherein, the business
model are more or less of identical nature. In any case of the matter,
17
Tata Teleservices (M) Ltd.
Commissioner Of Income Tax-3/2 vs M/S Idea Cellular Ltd on 3 April, 2017
transaction relating to sale of prepaid sim cards and RCVs to the
distributors as it is on principal-to-principal basis. The Hon'ble
Rajasthan High Court in the case cited by the learned Authorised
Representative while considering identical nature of dispute after
examining the relevant agreement has ultimately concluded that the
distributor cannot be treated as an agent of the assessee, hence, the
provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable in respect of
discount given on sale of prepaid sim cards and RCVs to the
distributors. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions as referred to by us, it
is clear that after considering the scope of agreement between the
assessee and assessee's group companies with the distributors it has
been concluded that the sale of prepaid sim cards and RCVs are
completed sale transaction on principal-to-principal basis and there is
no principal-agent relationship involved. Therefore, provisions of
section 194H of the Act are not attracted. In view of the aforesaid,
factual and legal position we are unable to accept the contention of the
learned Departmental Representative. As regards the decisions relied
upon by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Departmental
Representative, we must observe that the decisions of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in case of Idea Cellular (supra) and the decision of
Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of Vodafone Essar (supra) were
considered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Rajasthan
High Court while deciding the case of M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd. The
15
Tata Teleservices (M) Ltd.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973
when no decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is available
on the disputed issue, whereas, there are decisions of Non-
jurisdictional High Courts expressing contrary view, as per the settled
legal principle, the view favorable to the assessee has to be adopted,
as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v/s Vegetable
Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 (SC) and CIT v/s Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.,
367 ITR 466 (SC). It is more pertinent in the present case, as these
favorable decisions were rendered either in assessee's own case or in
the case of assessee's group concerns. In view of the aforesaid, upon
considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and
applying the principle laid down in the judicial precedents cited before
us, we hold that the sale of prepaid sim cards and RCVs by the
assessee to the distributors are on principal-to-principal basis, hence,
outside the ambit of section 194H of the Act. Therefore, no
disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made. Accordingly, we
uphold the impugned orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in
all these assessment years. The grounds raised are dismissed.
Commr.Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Vatika Township Pvt.Ltd. on 29 October, 2014
when no decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is available
on the disputed issue, whereas, there are decisions of Non-
jurisdictional High Courts expressing contrary view, as per the settled
legal principle, the view favorable to the assessee has to be adopted,
as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v/s Vegetable
Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 (SC) and CIT v/s Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.,
367 ITR 466 (SC). It is more pertinent in the present case, as these
favorable decisions were rendered either in assessee's own case or in
the case of assessee's group concerns. In view of the aforesaid, upon
considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and
applying the principle laid down in the judicial precedents cited before
us, we hold that the sale of prepaid sim cards and RCVs by the
assessee to the distributors are on principal-to-principal basis, hence,
outside the ambit of section 194H of the Act. Therefore, no
disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made. Accordingly, we
uphold the impugned orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in
all these assessment years. The grounds raised are dismissed.
Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, ... vs Dcit, Coimbatore on 21 September, 2017
distributor on the MRP of sim card / RCVs vis-a-vis the money paid for
acquiring them is actually not the income of distributor in the form of
commission or brokerage, is not acceptable. He also held that the
contention of the assessee that the relationship between the assessee
and the distributor in so far as it relates to sale of prepaid sim card /
RCVs is on principal-to-principal basis is not acceptable in view of the
provisions contained under section 194H of the Act. The Assessing
Officer observed, the discount on MRP given by the assessee to the
distributor on sale of prepaid sim card and RCVs is in the nature of
commission as per section 194H of the Act. Referring to the decision of
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v/s Idea Cellular
Ltd.[2010] 325 ITR 148, and the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High
Court in case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. v/s ACIT[2013] 354 ITR 507, the
Assessing Officer ultimately held that the discount given to the dealers
is in the nature of commission on which tax was deductible at source
under section 194H of the Act. Accordingly, he made disallowance
under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for an amount of ` 37,23,82,412
under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Similar disallowances were also
made in the other assessment years under appeal. Being aggrieved
with the disallowances made as aforesaid, assessee preferred appeals
before the first appellate authority.
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 14 August, 2017
It has
not been demonstrated before us by the learned Departmental
Representative that the agreements on the basis of which the cases of
Hutchison Telecom East Ltd. (supra) and Vodafone Mobile Services
Ltd. (supra) were decided are identical to the agreement between the
present assessee and its distributors. On the contrary, in the
impugned assessment order the Assessing Officer has acknowledged
that the business model of the assessee is different from other mobile
operators, though, of-course, he has attempted to get over it by
observing that the little changes in the business model do not alter the
character of the business at the macro level. Thus, in view of the
aforesaid distinguishing features, the decisions cited by the learned
Departmental Representative, with due respect, are not applicable to
the facts of the present appeals. On the contrary, the decisions relied
upon by the assessee, in our considered opinion, are applicable to the
facts of the assessee's case, since, they are rendered either in the
case of the assessee or its group companies, wherein, the business
model are more or less of identical nature. In any case of the matter,
17
Tata Teleservices (M) Ltd.
1