M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/163/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Tata Teleservices Limited appealing against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core issue was the classification of a certain activity by Tata Teleservices as a 'sale' rather than 'commission'. The Supreme Court had previously ruled on a similar issue in Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which favored the assessee's position. The High Court of Telangana, referencing this Supreme Court decision, set aside the lower orders and allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752821 (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 KRISHNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: ANANYA KAPOOR
• Keywords: Bharati Cellular Ltd.; Commission; Income Tax; Sale; Supreme Court judgment
• Section: 151; 260-4

Judgement Text

"I I I I I I I l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 163 oF 2018 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncorne tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in ITA No. 7S5 lHl2012 for Assessment Year 20'10-11 , dated 25-10-2O17 preterred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-ll , Hyderabad dated 5-10- 2012 in ITA No, 0125/ClT (A) -ll, Hydl 201O-11 , preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle -'15 (2) , Hyderabad dated 31-12-2010 TAN : HYDTOO554B Between: M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited, Hyderabad AND 5th Floor, K.L.K. Estate, Fateh Maidan Road, ...APPELLANT Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax. Crrcle '15 (2OHyderabad ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO. 1 0F 2024: Petition Under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to i) Accept and allow the instant application and may kindly list l.T.T.A.No. 163 of 2018 for final hearrng as early as possrble in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. ANANYA KAPOOR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY Representing SRI RADHA KRISHNA The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU Rtr\"IESHWAR RAO I.T.T.A.No.163 OF 2018 JUDGMEIT: (per 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 ior the respondent. 2. Witl. the consent, finally heard. 3. l,earned counsel for the appellant, at the oulset, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Cc,urt in Bharati Cellular Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxr submits that singular point involved in this matter is no more res integra and curtains are finally 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 sale, whereas the respondents are lreating it to be \"commission\". Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Court hzrs decided the aforesaid point in favour of assessees, tfLe rrnpugnerl orde'r may be set aside. 4. lrarned counsel for the respondent fairl-v subrnitted that singular point above indeed covered bl the rcccnt .iudgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd's case supra. 5. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. t ' 120241462 rrR 247 (sC) I 6. Accordingly, the Appeai is erllcwed- No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER To 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-ll , Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle -15 (2) ' Hyderabad 4. One CC to Sri. Anup Koushik Karavadi, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate (OPUC) 6. One CC to Sri A. Radha Krishna , Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies kuVgh Pntc,'.. L 1 HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2024 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.163 of 2018 '|{c . 19lto u-^^ I I,LOWING THE II'TA 'tf il()t r.t cosTs U] I illll )tfit "