M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

ITTA/758/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited appealing against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was itself an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad. The core issue was the classification of certain transactions by the appellant as 'sale', while the tax authorities treated them as 'commission'. The Supreme Court had previously decided on a similar issue in Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which favored the assesses. Both parties acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal without costs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 762805 (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 REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Appeal; Commission; Income Tax; Sale; Supreme Court judgment
• Section: 151 CPC; 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 758 OF 2017 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-A of the lncome tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench,\"A\" Hyderabad in l.T.A. No. 1401/ Hydl 2O15 for Assessment Year 201 1-12 daled 29- 09-2017 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)- 8, Hyderabad dated 09-10-2015 in ITA No. 0410/ CIT (A) -8 lHydl2o15 -16 preferred against the order of the Dy. Commissioner of lncome -Tax, Circle 15 (2), Hyderabad dated 14-1 1-2014 in TAN : HYDH00652B. Between: M/s. Vodafone lv4obile Services Limited, (Formerly M/s Vodafone South, Limited), 1- 10-1 78, Varun Towers-ll, 6th Floor, Begumpet, Hyderabad-sOO016. ...APPELLANT/ Appellant AND Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax (TDS), Circle -15(2), Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/ Respondent lA NO: 5 OF 2017 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 direct the registry to list the matter under the caption For Being Mentioned to correct the inadvertent error that crept into the order dated 05-12-201 7 in ITTAMP Nos 743 and 747 of 2O17 in ITTA Nos 753 and 758 of 2017 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(l ITAMP. NO: 747 OF 2017) Petition unde. Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in r;r,pport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent no: to take any coercive steps for the recovery of the balance alleged demand, perrling disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appr:llant:SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A. RAMAKRiSHNA REDDY representing SRI RADHA KRISHNA The Court deliverecl the following Judgment: I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HOIVOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO I.T.T.A.No.758 OF 2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujou paul) Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. With the consent, Iinally heard. 3. Learned counsel for Lhe appellant, at the outset, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Court 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 drau.n by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the said case. It is submitted l hat rhe stand of t-he petitioner was the activity in qucstion is a sale, u.hereas the respondents are treating it to be \"commission\". Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the aforesaid poini in favour of assessees, the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel lor the respondent fairly submitted that singular point above indeed covered by the recent judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd's case supra. 5. Resultantly, rhe impugned order is set aside. , I I t - [2024]46) rrR 247 (SC) / I 2 6. AccordingJy, the Appeai is allowed' No costs lnterlocutory applications, if a r y pending, shall also stand closeri' sd/-Av's s c tEti$tt[A *rl //TRUE coPY/' aECTloN oFFtcER To, 1. The lncome -firx Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench,''A'' Hyderabad 2. The Commit;: ioner of lncome Tax (Appealsf8' Hyderabad 3. The Dy. Cotnnissioner of lncome -Tax' Circle 15 (2)' Hyderabad 4. One CC to lllll A V A' SIVA KARTIKEYA' Advocate IOPUCI 5. One CC to S;Fl.|. A RADHA KRISHNA' Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Collies 5 I HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2024 JUDGNIENT |TTA.No.7S8 ot 2O'l'; ALLOWING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS @c4 4 o ,€r 2 i lici l:2,1 ( q .t- ) (-) z * If.l DE( frr\" S H 1 "