VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LTD. WHICH STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS IDEA LTD.),MUMBAI V. ACIT - CIRCLE- 5 (3)(2), MUMBAI

MA 247/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vodafone Idea Limited, which sought rectification of a previous Tribunal order concerning the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The dispute centered on the incorrect recording in the Tribunal's order that the agreement between Vodafone and IBM was not on record, which was pivotal to the Assessee's claim for deductions on service charges. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight upon reviewing the submitted documents and corrected the record, thereby remanding the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further verification of the agreement and related documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832237 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"J\" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.247/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.316/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Vodafone Idea Limited (as successor to ‘Vodafone India Limited’ which stands merged with ‘Idea Cellular Limited’ and is consequently known as ‘Vodafone Idea Limited’) 10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mill Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030, Maharashtra [PAN:AAACB2100P – Vodafone Idea Ltd.] (PAN: AAACH5332B – Erstwhile Vodafone India Ltd.) …………. Applicant Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra. ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Applicant /Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Ninad Patade Shri Surendra Mohan Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 14.11.2025 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present Miscellaneous Application has been preferred by the Assessee seeking rectification of order, dated 18/02/2025, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.316/Mum/2019, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 247/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.316/Mum/2019) Assessment Year 2014-2015 2 3. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that in Paragraph 7.4 at Page 26 of Order, dated 18/02/2025, the Tribunal had recorded incorrect - „We find that the underlying agreement between the Appellant and IBM is not on record‟. On perusal of the Paper Book, we find that copy of the Master Service Agreement, dated 05/12/2007, entered into between IBM and Vodafone Group of Companies was filed before the authorities below and the same has been placed at Page 236 to 331 of the Paper Book filed by the Assessee on 22/11/2024. Though the said agreement was filed, the authorities below had not considered the same and had rejected the contention raised by the Assessee merely on the ground that the expenditure under consideration was capitalized in the books of accounts of the Assessee. Vide Order, dated 18/02/2025 (at Paragraph 7.6), Tribunal had restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer with directions. Therefore, the expunging the aforesaid sentence forming part of Paragraph 7.6 of the Order as requested by the Assessee would not have any impact on the decision/directions given the Tribunal. Accordingly, the request of the Assessee to expunge the following sentence from Paragraph 7.6 of the order dated 18/02/2025 is accepted. “We find that the underlying agreement between the Appellant and IBM is not on record” 4. Accordingly, Paragraph 7.6 of the Order dated 18/02/2025 shall be replaced by and be read as under: “7.6. Having considered the rival submission and on perusal of material on record we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant that the claim of deduction made by the Appellant cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the expenditure under consideration was capitalized in the books of accounts of the Appellant. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Appellant is directed to Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 247/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.316/Mum/2019) Assessment Year 2014-2015 3 file the relevant agreement, invoices and other supporting documents before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow a deduction for service charges amounting Ito NR.14,66,82,051/- paid/payable to IBM in case on verification of the aforesaid agreement and supporting documents the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the aforesaid payment is in the nature of annual maintenance charge or annual operating lease rental paid/payable by the Appellant to IBM for the relevant previous year. In terms of the aforesaid Ground No. 4 to 4.2 raised by the Appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. In result, in terms of paragraph 3 and 4 above, the Miscellaneous Application preferred by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 21.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Vikram Singh Yadav) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated :21.01.2026 Milan, LDC Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 247/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.316/Mum/2019) Assessment Year 2014-2015 4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "