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

ITTA/761/2017

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by M/s Vodafone Mobire Services Limited against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, TDS Circle-15(2), Hyderabad, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad. The core issue was the classification of certain transactions by Vodafone as 'sales' rather than 'commissions', which had significant tax implications. The appellant argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which favored the classification of such transactions as sales, should apply to their case. The respondent did not contest this interpretation, acknowledging the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689743 (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
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Appeal; Commission; Income Tax; Sale
• Section: 151; 260-A

Judgement Text

"Aaaaa[ 341 'l ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL ANO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 76'l OF 2017 lncome Tax Tribunar Appear under section 260 A of the rncome Tax Act 1961 against the order dated 29-09-20 1 7 on the fire of the rncome Tax Appeilate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches - A, Hyderabad in l.T.A.No. 14O3lHydt2015 for Assessment Year 2013-14 preferred against the order dated 0g-10-2015 on the file of Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)_g, Hyderabad in ITTA.No. 0413/clr(A)-B/Hydl2015-16 preferred against the order dated 14-11-2014 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome-Tax, TDS circle-15(2), Hyderabad. Between: AND M/s'. Vodafone Mobire Services Lrmiled (Formery M/s Vodafone south Limited) 1-10-178, Varun Towers-rt, otn Frobr)'alsu-,.p\"t, Hyoe-rauai-soddio\" ..AppellanUAppellant Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax (TDS), Circle_15(2), Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondent l.A. NO: 'l OF 2017(ITTAMP. NO: 750 OF 2017) Petition under Section i 5 i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tne-Higrr court may be preased to direct the Respondent not to take any coercive stepifor the recovery of tne oaiince alleged demand, pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A V A Siva Kartikeya Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A Rama Krishanheddy representing Sri A. Radha Krishna The Court delivered the following: Judgment I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJE^SIIWAR RAO I.T.T.A.No.76l OF 2017 JUDGMENT: Q:er Hon'ble Justice Sujog 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 lbr the respondent. 2. With the consent, hnally heard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Cellular Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxl submits that singular point involved in this matter is no more res integra arrd curtains are hnaliy drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in rhe said case. It is submitted that the stand of the petitioner was the activity in question is a sale, whereas the respondents are treating it to be \"commission\". Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the aforesaid point in favour ofassessees, the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for l.he respondent fairly submitted that singular point above indeed covered by the recent judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd's case supra. 5. - Resultan t ' 1zo2+'1aaz tTR 247 (sc) y, the impugned order is set aside. 2 6. Accordingly, the Appeal is allorved. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. sd/- A.v.s.s.c.s.M. JOINT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER A R To, 1. Thil Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bencher - A, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome-Tax, TDS circle-'l5(2), Hyderabad 4. One CC to Sri A V A Siva Kartikeya' Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri A. Radha Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ADK/gh w f HIGH COURT DATED:0310912024 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.761 of 2017 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS .ed4 Y - t Jt' l HE S 14 0 0 iAil 2025 f, C) -A + P4TcHEo % $ I I // "