M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/279/2018

AI Insights

The case involved an appeal by Vodafone Mobile Services Limited against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle -2 (1), Hyderabad, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench '8'. The dispute centered on the classification of certain transactions by Vodafone, which were treated as 'commission' by the tax authorities, whereas Vodafone contended they were 'sales'. The High Court's decision was influenced by a Supreme Court judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd., which had addressed a similar issue in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689820 (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: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2015-16; Commission; Income Tax; Sale; TDS
• Section: 151; 260-4

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR rHE HoN,BLE r\"*T58rtf,l. suJoy pAUL rHE HoN,BLE sRrJUSrcE \"lil?ro*o\"u RAJESHWAR RAo INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 279 0F 2018 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under section 260-4 of the lncometaxAct, 1961, against the order of the rncome Tax Appeilate Tribunar, Hyderabad Bench ,,8,, , Hyderabad in lrA No. 4otHyd/2018 for Assessment year 2015 _16 i.e. 01-10_2014 to 31-03-2015) dated 30-05-20r8 preferred against the order of the commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeats)-8, Hyderabad dated 30-11-20.t7 in lrA No. 0295/clr (A) _ 8/ Hydl2016-17 preferred against the order of the Asst. commissioner of rncome Tax , TDS Circte -2 (.1) , Hyderabad dated 27_02_2017 pan: AAACS4457Q Between: [ //s. Vodafone Mobire Services Lrmited, (Formerrv Mis. Vodafone south Limited ) 1-10-178, Varun Towers-ll, 6th Floor, e\"'grrpui, H\",/j\"rrOaO_ SO6'Oi6: il;\";;;\" AND ...APPELLANT Assistant commissioner of rncome Tax, TDS circre - 2(r), Hyderabad, 4rh Froor, A- Block, l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, HyOeraOa-O-_-S0O 001, fifri'lgin;--, ...RESPONDENT IANO:1OF2 018 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, t\"\"Higr, court may o. pLr.Loio Jir\"\"t the Respondent not to take any coercive steps\" for the reclvery or tnu taLn\"\" alleged demand, pending disposal of the above appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KART|KEYA Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A. RAMA I{RISHNA REDDY, representing STi RADHA KRISHNA The Court delivered the following Judgment : ; t ,r THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO I.T.T.A.No.279 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Hut'ble Justice Sujoy Paul) . Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for thc appellant, Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Radha Krishna, learned cou nsel for the respondent. 2. Witl-r the cons( nt, hnally heard. 3. Learned counsei for the appellant, at thc outset, bv placing reliance on the juclgment of Hon'ble Supreme Cor.rrt in Bharati Cellular Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxl submits that singular point irvolved in this matter is no more res inteclra and curtains are final1y rlrawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Clourt rn the said case. It is submitterl that the stand of the petitioner u'as thc rctivity in question is a sal:, whereas the respondents are trcating it to be \"commission\". Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Cour[ has decicled the aforesaid point in f:rl.our of assessees, the impugned order ma1' be set aside. 4. Learned cour: sel for the respondent fairly submitted that singular point above indeed covered by the recent judgrrLent in Bharati Cellular Ltd's case supra. 5. Resultantly, t-L e impugned order is set aside. t ' 120241462 lrR 247 (SC) 2 6. Accordingly, the Appcal is allowecl, No costs. Interlocutotv applications, if any pencling, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR -/ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 A Cl The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench \"8\" , Hyderabad The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad The Asst. Commissioner of lncome Tax , TDS Cicle -2 (1) , Hyderabad One CC to SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI RADHA KRISHNA , Advocate (OPUC) Two CD CoPies clu^ HIGH COURT DATED:O31O912024 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.279 of 2018 AI-LOWING ]'HE ITT- WITFIOTJ'f COSTS A,l?' rq t0w @ "