TATA TELE SERVICES LTD V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/161/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the classification of certain transactions by Tata Teleservices Ltd, which were treated as 'commission' by the tax authorities, whereas the appellant argued they were 'sales'. The matter escalated through various levels of tax adjudication, ultimately reaching the High Court of Telangana. The core legal issue was the interpretation of these transactions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically whether they should be classified as sales or commissions for tax purposes. The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court decision, found in favor of the appellant, Tata Teleservices Ltd, and set aside the previous orders that had classified the transactions as commissions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752825 (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 RAMA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: ANANYA KAPOOR
• Keywords: Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Supreme Court judgment; Commission vs Sale
• Section: 151; 260-4

Judgement Text

"I s411 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURAELE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 161 OF 2018 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome tax Act, 1g61, against the order dated 25.10.2017, passed in l.T.A. No. 7S7lHl2D12 lor Assessment Year 2009-10 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 13-12-2OOg passed in Dy. Commissioner of lncome -Tax, Circle 15 (2), Hyderabad in TAN: HYDTOOs54B. Between: M/s. Tata Teleservices LTD Hyderabad 5th floor. K.L.K. Estate, Fateh Madina Raod, ...APPELLANTS AND Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 15(2), Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 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 allow the instant application and may kindly list ITTA No. .161 of 2OlB for final hearing as early as possible in the interest of .justice. ii) lssue any order or relief which this Hon'ble Courl 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 Krishna The Court made the following JUDGMENT: I I /i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TAMAVARAPU RAJESTIWAR RAO I.T.T.A.No.161 OF 2018 JUDGMEI{T: (per Hon'ble Justtce Sujoy Paul) Ms.Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A,Rania Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. With the consent, frnally heard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, by placing reliance on the judgment Lrf Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Cellular Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioaer of Income Taxl submits that singular point involved in this matter is no more res integra and curtains are finally drawn by the llon'ble Supreme Court in the said case. It is sulrmitted that the stand of rhc petil-ioner was the activity in question is a sale, whereas the rcspondents are treating it to be \"commission\". Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the aforesaid point in favour of assessecs, thc trnpugned order may be set aside. 4. Leamed counsel for rhe respor ldent fairly submitted that singular point above indeed covcrcd bl the recent judgment in Bharati Celluiar Ltd's case supra. 5. Resultantly, the impugned order is ser aside. 'Izozal+ez rR zaz (sc) I ! l I I 1 I 2 6. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. sd/- M. VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT GISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad.Bench' \"8\" Hyderabad z. f n\" C\"r.issionei of lncome Tax (Appeals)-ll' Hyderabad i. r'n\" ov. cormission\"i oitncome -rii, circle 15 (2), Hyderabad o O\"\" C'C to Ms. Ananya Kapoor' Advocate [OPUC] S on. CC to Sri Radha Krishn?' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies DL/gh 4tqq. n E .'\"': HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2024 ORDER ITTA.No.161 of 20'18 lt(, iffi -) ') v. \"rI1,:.j i/ l: il E 0 ,, .: .:? v; rolr''t' ALLOWING THE APPEAL I ! / I "