M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited V. Dy. Commissioner

ITTA/162/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Tata Teleservices Limited appealing against an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld a decision treating certain transactions as commission rather than sales, affecting the tax assessment for the years 2007-08 to 2010-11. The appellant argued that these transactions were sales, a position supported by a recent Supreme Court judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The respondent did not contest this interpretation, acknowledging the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision to the case at hand. Consequently, the High Court set aside the previous orders and allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 735794 (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; Income Tax; Supreme Court judgment; Sale vs Commission
• Section: 151 CPC; 260-4

Judgement Text

"[ 3411 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND ANO TWENW FOUR PRESENT . THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 162 OF 2018 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 25 10.2017 passed in l.T.A. No. 755 lHl2012 for Assessment Year 2007 -2008 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, \"8\" Hyderabad, preferred against the order dated 12.03.2012, passed in ITA No. 0278/ClT(A)-ll. Hyd/2009-10 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-ll, Hyderabad, preferred against the order dated 13.12.2009 on the file of the Dy. Commissioner of lncome -Tax, Circle 15 (2), Hyderabad in TAN:HYDT00554B Between: M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited, 5th floor, KLK Estate, Fateh Maidan road, Hyderabad ..APPELLANT/APPELLANT AND Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle '15 (2), Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT'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 certifred copy of the impunged order dated 25.10.2017 passed in ITA No.755 to 7571H12O12 for assessment years 2007-10 and ITA No.153/H/2013 for AY 2010-11 / ,I PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petiiion, th; High Court may be ple,lsed -to:- i) n\"l\"pi\"\"O ailow the insiinlappticaiion and.may t(nUty tist ITTA No. 162 of 2018 ioi-r-.,,irr-n\"rrlng as early as possible in the interest of justice. ii) lssue any order \"-, ,\"ii\"t *ti\"f, It i. Couri Oeems 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 Krishna ANO:1OF 2O24 The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA'ESHWAR RAO I.T.T.A.No .162 oF 2018 JUDGMENT: @er Hon'ble Justice Sujog Poul) Ms.Ananya Kapoor, Iearned counsel for the appellant' Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent- 2. With the consent, hnallY heard' 3. Irarned counsel for the appeliant, at the outset, by placing reliance on the judgrnent of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati CeIIuIar Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxr submits tlrat.singular point involved irl this matter is no more res integra and curtains are frnally drawn by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in the said case. It is submitted that the stand of the petitioner was the activity in question is a sale, u'hereas the respondents are treating it to be ncommission'. Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the aJoresaid point in favour oi assessces' tlre impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respon