Punjab-Haryana High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) - 2 ... vs M/S Idea Cellular Ltd on 7 November, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
ITA-8533 of 2018 and
ITA-8534-2018(O&M) Page 1 of 3
254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
ITA-8533-2018(O&M)
The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2, Chandigarh
. . . . Appellant
Vs.
M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.
. . . . Respondent
ITA-8534-2018(O&M)
The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2, Chandigarh
. . . . Appellant
Vs.
M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.
. . . . Respondent
Date of Decision: 07.11.2024
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
****
Present: Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Senior Standing Counsel,
for the appellant(s)/Income Tax Department.
Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate and
Mr. Sachin Jolly, Advocate (through video conferencing)
For the respondent(s).
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. By way of this common order, both the aforesaid appeals are
being decided.
authenticity of this order/judgment
ITA-8533 of 2018 and
2. Appellant(s)/Revenue have filed the appeals against the order
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'the ITAT'),
whereby it was held that the discount offered by the assessee to the
distributor for its prepaid services is not commission or brokerage as
envisaged under Section 194 H of the Income Tax Act and it was submitted
that Section 194 of the Income Tax Act shall be applicable. The appeals were
with regard to the respondents Assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12
respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant(s)/revenue submits that the
issue is no more res integra, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court ' Bharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata and another'
passed in Civil Appeal No. 7257-2011, dated 28.02.2024.
The relevant extract of Bharti Cellular Limited (supra), reads as
under:
"42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the
assessees would not be under a legal obligation to deduct
tax at source on the income/profit component in the
payments received by the distributors/franchisees from the
third parties/customers, or while selling/transferring the
pre-paid coupons or starter-kits to the distributors.
Section 194-H of the Act is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the appeals filed
by the assessee-cellular mobile service providers,
authenticity of this order/judgment
ITA-8533 of 2018 and
challenging the judgments of the High Courts of Delhi
and Calcutta are allowed and these judgments are set
aside. The appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the
judgments of High Courts of Rajashtan, Karnataka and
Bombay are dismissed. There would be no orders as to
cost. Pending Applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of."
4. We uphold the order passed by the ITAT and as the order of the
ITAT culminated into the order passed by the AO, whereby the appeal was
allowed, therefore, no further directions are required to be passed and both
the appeals are hereby dismissed.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
November 07, 2024
Lavisha
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
