BHARTI AIRTEL LTD (SUCCESSOR TO TELENOR INDIA COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD),GURGAON V. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 1670/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Bharti Airtel Limited, which is the successor to Telenor India Communications Pvt. Ltd., contesting the final assessment orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), New Delhi. The assessments for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 were challenged on grounds including the legality of the orders passed in the name of a non-existent entity post-merger, and issues related to transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal's decision highlighted procedural lapses by the tax authorities in updating their records post-merger, leading to the setting aside of the assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312908 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: P. R. Commissioner of Income- tax -7 Vs. Vedanta Ltd., PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.K. JHADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: K.M. GUPTA; APPLYING PERSISTENT LOSS FILTER
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Revised return; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Scheme of amalgamation
• Section: 143(3); 154; 244A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘H’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos:- 1670 and 1671/Del/2022 (Assessment Years- 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bharti Airtel Limited, (Successor to Telenor India Communications Pvt. Ltd.), Airtel Centre Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122015. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi. PAN No: AAECT1511C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shruti Khimta, Adv. & Ms. Supriya Mehta, CA Revenue by : Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing :04.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM These two appeals preferred by the assessee were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 2 of 19 convenience and brevity, as the grounds raised in these appeals are identical. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: ITA No.- 1670/Del/2022 “1.On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act, Transfer Pricing Order under section 92CA(3) of the Act and the consequential final assessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre /Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), New Delhi ('Ld AO') in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (\"Ld. DRP\") are bad in law and void ab initio being passed in the name of a non-existent entity which ceased to exist with effect from May 14, 2018 in pursuance to the Scheme of Amalgamation and accordingly vitiates the whole assessment proceedings. In relation to Transfer Pricing adjustment 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred in making a Transfer Pricing adjustment of INR 6,29,40,000 in pursuance to the directions of Ld. DRP to the return of income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the Indian TP regulations of adoption of transaction by transaction by approach and erred in facts and law by applying the aggregation approach for the determination of Arm's Length Price ('ALP') of all international transaction undertaken by the Appellant in the year under consideration to hold that the such international transactions are not at arm's length. 3.1On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO have erred in not appreciating that on the basis of application of TNMM using Associated Enterprise ('AE') as the tested parties, the international transaction of availing of personnel services and business support services from AEs on a cost plus 5% margin basis has been adequately demonstrated to be at arm's length. 3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO have erred in rejecting Appellant's approach to consider foreign AE as a tested partyfor benchmarking the ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 3 of 19 international transaction pertaining to availing of personnel services and business support services. 3.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO have erred in not appreciating that foreign AE is the least complex entity while the Appellant is characterized as an entrepreneur with regard to above mentioned transactions. 3.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in not appreciating that on the basis of application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, the international transactions of payment of royalty @0.15% of sales have been adequately demonstrated to be at arm's length. (though on account of typo error, the TPO erroneously in the DRP effect order excluded the same instead of cost allocation in the table, however the same has no bearing on the total amount on which transfer pricing adjustment is made in the order) 3.5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in not appreciating that on the basis of application of the Other Method, the international transaction of receipt of roaming services has been adequately demonstrated to be at arm's length. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO have erred in wrongfully rejecting comparable companies and including certain non-comparable companies to the final set of comparable companies for the purpose of determining the ALP of the international transactions on an ad- hoc basis, without undertaking any search process and thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in rejecting functionally comparable companies identified by the Appellant by applying persistent loss filter. Taxability of Income from Other Source 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in including the income from other source amounting of Rs. 5,02,10,547 in the computation sheet in-spite of the fact that such amount is correctly set-off with the current year business loss in the assessment order leading to incorrect carry forward of losses for the year under consideration. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in levying interest under section 234D of ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 4 of 19 the Act and incorrectly computed the interest allowable under section 244A of the Act to appellant in computation sheet. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & law, the Ld. AO / TPO erred in lying penalty under section 270A of the Act mechanically without considering the fact that the appellant has neither under reported nor misreported its income during the year under consideration. The above grounds of appeal are independent, of and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, rescind, modify, or withdraw any ground(s) herein above or produce further documents either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA No.-1671/Del/2022 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act, Transfer Pricing Order under section 92CA(3) of the Act and the consequential final assessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre /Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), New Delhi ('Ld AO') in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (\"Ld. DRP\") are bad in law and void ab initio being passed in the name of a non-existent entity which ceased to exist with effect from May 14, 2018 in pursuance to the Scheme of Amalgamation and accordingly vitiates the whole assessment proceedings. In relation to Transfer Pricing adjustment 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/ TPO grossly erred in making a Transfer Pricing adjustment of INR 14,09,40,000 in pursuance to the directions of Ld. DRP to the return of income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the Indian TP regulations of adoption of transaction by transaction by approach and erred in facts and law by applying the aggregation approach for the determination of ALP of all international transaction undertaken by the Appellant in the year under consideration to hold that the such international transactions are not at arm's length. ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 5 of 19 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO have erred in not appreciating that on the basis of application of TNMM using AEs as the tested parties, the international transaction of availing of personnel services from AEs on a cost plus 5% margin basis has been adequately demonstrated to be at arm's length. 3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO have erred in rejecting Appellant's approach to consider foreign AE as a tested party for benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to availing of personnel services and business support services. 3.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO have erred in not appreciating that foreign AE is the least complex entity while the Appellant is characterized as an entrepreneur with regard to above mentioned transactions. 3.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in not appreciating that on the basis of application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method, the international transactions of payment of interest have been adequately demonstrated to be at arm's length. 3.5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in not appreciating that on the basis of application of the Other Method, the international transactions of payment of reimbursement of expenses and recovery of expenses cost to cost basis has been adequately demonstrated to be at arm's length and are similar to cost allocation which Ld. DRP directed to exclude from cost base. 3.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in not excluding the provision of services (Secondment Services) being the receipt of the Appellant from the cost base considered for making an transfer pricing adjustment in the hands of the appellant without appreciating that such amount being received by the AE's and not paid to AE's on incorrect appreciation of the facts of the case. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in not excluding interest paid to Associated enterprise in the consolidated value of international transactions for apportionment of transfer pricing adjustments without appreciating that while undertaking adjustment at the entity wide level using TNMM, interest expenses should not form part of ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 6 of 19 operating expense and the same should not be considered for any adjustment while applying entity level TNMM. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO have erred in wrongfully rejecting comparable companies and including certain non-comparable companies to the final set of comparable companies for the purpose of determining the ALP of the international transactions on an ad-hoc basis, without undertaking any search process and thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in rejecting Biletionally comparable companies de tried in het by applying persistent loss filter. 7. Without prejudice to ground no. 2 to 6 on merit, the Ld. AO erred in taxing the addition of INR 14,09,40,000 in the assessment order (wrongly stated INR 10,70.13.230 in the computation sheet) without setting off the current year business loss as claimed in the return of income resulting in excess tax liability of tax & interest on the appellant. Taxability of Income from Other Source 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in taxing the income from other source amounting to Rs. 3,39,26,767 in the computation sheet erroneously though the amount is adjusted with the current year business losses in the return of income which being accepted in the assessment order. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in granting short interest and incorrectly computing the interest under section 244A of the Act payable to the appellant. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B/234D of the Act. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act mechanically without considering the fact that the Appellant has neither under reported nor misreported its income during the year under consideration. The above grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, rescind, modify, or withdraw any ground(s) herein above ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 7 of 19 or produce further documents either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. We take ITA No. 1670/Del/2022 as a lead case for Assessment Year 2017-18 to adjudicate both these appeals. 2.1. Facts of the case may be summarized as that the assessee has electronically filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2017- 18 on 29.11.2017 and revised return of income on 29.03.2018 by declaring total income at INR NIL/- (Losses of current year to be carried forward INR 9,92,05,22,878/-). The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The reasons for selection of the case are as under: \"Value of foreign remittance sent by the assessee is higher than the gross total income (Assessee being remitter)\" \"Receipt of large value foreign remittance and low/nil business income (Assessee being remittee) \"Large \"any other amount allowable as deduction\" claimed in Schedule BP of return\" \"Foreign Remittance made to person(s)located in low tax jurisdiction countries (Assessee remitter)\" being \"Lower amount disallowed u/s40A(7 ) In Part AOI of ITR in comparison to tax audit report\" \"Low income in comparison to high loans / advances /investment in shares appearing in balance sheet ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 8 of 19 \"International transaction(s) in respect of lending or borrowing of money (TP. Risk Parameter) \"Large Value claim of refund \"Custom duty paid as shown in on the Duty Paid as per Export Import Data Subsequently, Notices under Section-142(1) were also issued and served upon the assessee time to time, to gather the information in case. In response to the statutory notices, the assessee replied electronically for the proceedings. 4. The case was transferred from FAO to JAO after due approval of CBDT. 2.2 Draft assessment order u/s 144C/143(3) of the Act was issued on 14.09.2021 in which transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.7,39,90,000/- as suggested by the TPO was proposed to be added to the total income of the assessee. 2.3 The assessee filed objection before Hon'ble DRP in which certain directions were issued to the Ld. TPO/AO. Accordingly, the Ld. TPO has passed order Giving Effect to the directions of Hon'ble DRP on 26.04.2022 in which the adjustment on account of ALP has been revised to Rs. 6,29,40,000/-. 3. Heard rival submissions and carefully scanned the material available on record. ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 9 of 19 4. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR reiterating the grounds of appeal, specifically submitted on ground no. 1, that impugned order passed in the name of non-existent entity which ceased to exist with effect from May 14, 2018 in pursuance to the scheme of amalgamation and accordingly vitiates the whole assessment proceedings. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee / appellant company provided wireless telecommunication services in India and operated as a GSM network carrier, incorporated in February, 2012. It is specifically mentioned that company based in New Delhi, India, TCPL operated as a subsidiary of Telenor South Asia Investment Pvt Limited, with effect from May 14,2018, TCPL been merged with Bharti Airtel Limited. The assessee company for the year under consideration, provided telecom services in 6 telecom circle namely, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh (East) and Uttar Pradesh (West). 7. It is further submitted that the assessee / appellant company amalgamated with Bharti Airtel Limited with appointed date of May ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 10 of 19 14, 2018 and the amalgamation was effective pursuant to order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), dated 08.2018, which is placed at page 1-82 of the Paper Book and pursuant to the said merger, Telenor stood dissolved from the appointed date. 8. It is also submitted that the assessee / appellant company filed a letter dated 12.06.2018 with Ld. AO giving intimation of the amalgamation of company with request to update the relevant records of the appellant. In the said letter, the assessee / appellant company intimated the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), New Delhi, that the assessee company i.e. Telenor (India) Communication Private Limited, has been merged with the Bharti Airtel Limited, pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by NCLT, vide its order dated 08.03.2018. Relevant extract, of the abovecited letter is reproduced as under: ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 11 of 19 9. Despite, intimation as mentioned hereinbefore, the Ld. Ao issued notice u/s 143(2), in the name of Telenor India Communication Pvt. Ltd., and Ld. AR submitted that in the ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 12 of 19 response of the above notice, intimated the Ld. AO of the fact of merger again. But still order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), in the name of Telenor India Communications Pvt. Ltd. 10. From the perusal of the above order, it exhibits that the Ld. TPO, despite prior intimation, passed the order in relevant law in the name of Telenor India communication Pvt. Ltd. and strangely in the column of name of the assessee specifically mentioned that Telenor India Communication Pvt. Ltd. (now merged with Bharti Airtel Limited) but order passed in the name of Telenor India Communication, which is non-existent at that point of time. 11. The Ld. AR also draws our attention that specifically draft assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, passed in the name of Telenor India Communication Pvt. Ltd., which was non-existent entity and it is relevant to mention here that the objection filed with the DRP and specific ground raised regarding passing a draft assessment order in the name of non-est entity i.e. Telenor India Communications Pvt. Ltd. Although, issue raised regarding merger and draft assessment order passed in the name of non-existent ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 13 of 19 company, before DRP but DRP’s direction issued and no adjudication was made in respect of above ground/ issue as the DRP had limited jurisdiction to adjudicate on variation made in the assessment order. 12. The Ld. AR submitted that despite frequent intimation regarding merger, the Ld. AO passed final assessment order dated 27.05.2022 in the name of Telenor Communication Pvt. Ltd., which is non-est entity. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that in view of the above fact situation, it is clearly manifested that assessment so done is in the name of non-existent entity. The draft assessment order, the transfer pricing order and the consequent final assessment order are void ab initio in the eye of law and consequent final assessment order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone and it is established principle of law that once scheme of amalgamation was approved by NCLT, transferable company came to be dissolved by operation of law. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of P. R. Commissioner of Income- tax -7 Vs. Vedanta Ltd. ITA No. 88/2022 in which Hon’ble High Court held that there was a valid disclosure ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 14 of 19 made by the respondent/assessee and the Ld. AO being duly apprised of the factum of merger and despite the same, the learned AO framed the draft assessment order in the name of a party which no longer existed on that date. The relevant para is reproduced as under: “ 15. In the facts of the present case, however, we find that there was a valid disclosure made by the respondent-assessee and the AO being duly apprised of the factum of merger. Despite the above, it chose to make the draft assessment order in the name of a party which no longer existed on that date. This was, therefore, not a case where the factum of merger had either been suppressed or where the respondent had held out that Cairn still existed and could be proceeded against. It was the conduct of the assessee in Sky Light which had convinced the Supreme Court to observe that the mistake would not render the order of assessment invalid and that it could be saved under Section 292B of the Act. The facts of the present case are clearly not akin to what prevailed in Sky Light. 16. Regard must also be had to the fact that Section 154 enables an authority under the Act to rectify and correct an accidental slip or omission. It pertains to a power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record. Section 292B seeks to save orders which may suffer from similar mistakes provided they be otherwise compliant with the letter and spirit of the Act. However, and as the Supreme Court explained in Maruti Suzuki, the making of an order of assessment which is inherently flawed or suffering from a patent illegality, and which would include a case where the order is drawn in the name of a non-existent entity, cannot be saved or rescued. 17. In our considered opinion, the power conferred by Section 154 would stand restricted to an inadvertent or unintentional error. The appellant has woefully failed to establish that the order of assessment as originally framed was intended to be in respect of the affairs of Vedanta, the respondent herein, or made cognizant of the factum of merger. Mr. Rai has also failed to draw our attention to any recital or observation forming part of the order of assessment which may have been representative of a conscious intent of the AO to frame an assessment in the name of the resultant entity and the order drawn in the name of Cairn being an accidental or inadvertent error.” ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 15 of 19 13. The Ld. AR also relied upon the judgment in the case PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC), in which the relevant para is reproduced as under: “ 33. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment (supra) on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment (supra). 34. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.” 14. From the bare perusal of the material placed on record and submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee, it is crystal clear that soon after amalgamation, the assessee / appellant company intimated the Ld. AO vide letter dated 12.06.2018, regarding ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 16 of 19 amalgamation of the company along with copy of order passed by the NCLT, but still the Ld. AO issued notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant assessment year in the name of Telenor India Communication Pvt. Ltd. Non est company and for which the Ld. AO was properly intimated well in time. After receiving the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the assessee / appellant company reiterated the fact of merger before the Ld. AO. It is relevant to mention here also that the Ld. TPO while passing order dated 31.07.2021 in the name of Telenor India Communication Pvt. Ltd., specifically mentioned in the title of the case regarding fact of merger and also in para no. 3 mentioned that the Telenor India Communication Pvt. Ltd. amalgamated with Bharti Airtel Ltd. with effect from 14.05.2018, and still this relevant fact ignored by the authority and draft order u/s 143(3) of the Act and final assessment order passed in the name of non-existent entity despite frequent intimation. 15. On the basis of foregoing submissions, fact situation and following binding judicial precedent, we find that final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO on 26.05.2022, u/s 143(3) of the Act seriously suffers from legal infirmity being framed by the ld. AO ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 17 of 19 against non-existent entity despite proper in time written communication. The assessee / appellant company intimated the fact of merger with request to update the records but the Ld. AO not only failed to update but ignored such a relevant information in bringing on record successor in interest. So, we are of a considered opinion that the impugned final assessment order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, against non-existent entity is quite unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside and quashed as provision of section 292B of the Act, unable to save it being a quashed as it is a jurisdictional legal infirmity, and consequently, the final assessment order dated 27.05.2022 quashed and set aside, and ground No.1 is allowed accordingly. 16. It is essential to mention here that we allowed the ground No.1 as mentioned hereinbefore, the other grounds of appeal need not required to adjudicate and we order accordingly. 17. As facts of the case in ITA No. 1671/Del/2022, for A.Y. 2018- 19, are identical the decision in ITA No. 1670/Del/2022 herein above, shall apply mutatis mutandis. ITA Nos.- 1670 & 1671/Del/2022 Bharti Airtel Limited Page 18 of 19 18. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.04.2025 SD/- SD/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:30/04/2025. Pooja/Neha, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "