C. I. T. , Delhi vs Bharti Hexacom Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1043

B. V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN
C. I. T. , Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Bharti Hexacom Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. C. Bharati, Adv. Mr. Rahul Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. S A Haseeb, Adv. Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
For the Respondent(s) Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Ms. Disha Jham, Adv. Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AOR Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Udit Naresh, Adv. Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal,, Adv. Ms. Sayaree Basu Mallik, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Gart, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhinabh Garg, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

Table of Content
1. variable licence fee as revenue expenditure. (Para 3 , 5)
2. clarification of policies affecting expenditure classification. (Para 6)
3. payments are capital in nature despite payment structure. (Para 24 , 28)
4. capital nature of license fee payments. (Para 25)
5. final verdict on apportionment of license fees. (Para 26)
6. final ruling on classification of variable licence fees. (Para 27)

(B.V. Nagarathna, J.)

2. Leave granted.

4. Since common questions of law and facts arise in these appeals, they have been clubbed together and heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The controversy in these cases revolves around the question, as to, whether, the variable licence fee paid by the respondent-assessees to the Department of Telecommunications (hereinafter referred to as “DoT”, for short) under the New Telecom Policy of 1999 (Policy of 1999) is revenue expenditure in nature and is to be allowed deduction under Section 37 of the Act, or, whether the same is capital in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 1043

B. V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYANC. I. T. , Delhi – AppellantVersusBharti Hexacom Ltd. – Respondent

B. V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN
C. I. T. , Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Bharti Hexacom Ltd. – Respondent