M/s.Tata teleservices Limited V. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15 (20

ITTA/160/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Tata Teleservices Limited appealing against an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had classified certain activities as 'commission' rather than 'sale'. The dispute centered on the classification of specific transactions for tax purposes under the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that these transactions were sales, which should not be subjected to the same tax treatment as commissions. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, supported the tribunal's classification. The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court decision, sided with the appellant, overturning the tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758063 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: ANANYA KAPOOR
• Keywords: Appeal; Commission; Income Tax; Sale; Supreme Court judgment
• Section: 151 CPC; 260-A

Judgement Text

"[ 3411 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 160 OF 2018 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act 1961 against the order dated 25-10-2017 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches - B, Hyderabad in LT.A.No.756l{12012 for Assessment Year 2008-09 preferred against the Order dated 13-03-2012 on the file of Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) - ll, Hyderabad in ITTA. No. 0276/ClT(A)-ll/Hyd/2009-10 preferred against the Order dated 31-12-2009 in TAN.No.HYDT00554B on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome-Tax, TDS circle-'1 5(2), Hyderabad. Between: It//s.Tata teleservices Limited, 5th Floor, KLK Estate, Fateh Maidan Road, Hydrabad ...Appellant AND Dy.Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle 15 (20, Hyderabad ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 25.10.2017 passed in ITA No.755 lo 7571H12O12 for assessment years 2007-1 0 and ITA No.153/H/20.13 for Ay.2010-1'l in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to: i) Accept and atlow the instant application and may kindly list ITTA No. 160 of 2018 for final hearing as early as possible in the interest of justice. ii) lssue any order or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fir and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. Ananya Kapoor Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A Rama Krishna Reddy representing Sri Radha Krishan (Sr SC For lT DEPT) The Court delivered the following: Judgment JUDGMENT: $ter Hon'ble Justice Sujog Paul) Ms.Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. With the consent, finally heard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Cellular Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxl submits that singula-r point involved in this matter is no more res integra ar,d curtains are flnallY drawn by the Hon\"ble Supreme Court in the said case. it is submitted that the stand of the petitioner was the activity in question is a sa,le, whereas the respondents are treating it to be \"commission\". Since, the Honlcle Supreme Court has decided the aforesaid point in favour of assessees, tlie impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that singular point above indeed covered by the recent judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd's case suPra. 5. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. ' lzozalaez rra zaz 1sc1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESI{WAR RAO .,, I.T.T.A.No.160 OF 2018 2 6. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if anv pending. sha11 also starrd closed. To, ADrugh fi-- Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches - B, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) - ll, Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome-Tax, TDS circle-15(2), Hyderabad. 4. One CC to Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0310912024 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.160 of 2018 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS a-'o8 i h, #ft- .1 rlL - ir , 2 0 ri[V zrl2{ 1 '.) tl ! I "