SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1043

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
C.I.T., Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Bharti Hexacom Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 11128 Of 2016 with Civil Appeal No(s). 4902 Of 2022, Civil Appeal No(s). 162 Of 2018, Civil Appeal No(s). 159 Of 2021, Civil Appeal No(s). 4839 Of 2017, Civil Appeal No(s). 153 Of 2021, Civil Appeal No(s). 6897 Of 2018, Civil Appeal No(s). Of 2023 (@ SLP (C) Of 2023 (@ Diary No(s). 4178 Of 2019), Civil Appeal No(s). Of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No. 24740 Of 2019), Civil Appeal No(s). Of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No. 20863 Of 2019), Civil Appeal No(s). 158 Of 2021, Civil Appeal No(s). 302 Of 2021, Civil Appeal No(s). 303 Of 2021, Civil Appeal No(s). 11149 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11148 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11130 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11131 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11134 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11132 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11136 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11133 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11135 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11137 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11140 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11141 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11139 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11142 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11143 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11145 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11146 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 11147 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). 163 Of 2018, Civil Appeal No(s). 11129 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No(s). Of 2023 (@ SLP (C) Of 2023 Diary No(s). 24728 Of 2023)
Decided On : 16-10-2023

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

The variable license fee under the New Telecom Policy is capital expenditure, amortizable, as it secures the right to operate telecom services.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 37 and 35ABB - Variable license fee under New Telecom Policy, 1999 - The Supreme Court examined whether the variable license fee paid by telecommunications companies is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. It ruled that the payment is capital in nature, as it is tied to the right to operate telecom services, and not merely a function of annual revenue. The judgment of the High Court of Delhi which treated the variable fee as partly capital and partly revenue was set aside. (Paras 2, 26, 28)

(B) Legal Characterization - The court emphasized that the nature of expenditure, whether capital or revenue, does not depend solely on its payment structure (lump-sum vs. periodic) but on its underlying obligation and relationship to capital assets. Payments in instalments can be capital if they are linked to the acquisition of a right or asset. (Paras 18, 24)

Facts of the case:
This batch of appeals was initiated by the Revenue against the decision of the Delhi High Court, which classified the license fee under the New Telecom Policy partly as capital and partly as revenue. The contested payments were made by various telecom operators for licenses governed by the Income Tax Act.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court concluded that both entry and variable license fees are capital expenses that may be amortized under Section 35ABB, affirming the Revenue's claim against the High Court's decision.

Issues: The court addressed the classification of variable license fees as either revenue or capital expenditure.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court underscored that the annual nature of payments related to operational licenses does not change their character as capital expenditures; the nature of the expense must be assessed based on the essence of the obligation rather than payment structure.

Result: The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, and previous judgments by the High Court of Delhi, Bombay, and Karnataka were set aside.

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)

JUDGMENT :

(B.V. Nagarathna, J.)

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, dated 19 December, 2013 in ITA No. 1336 of 2010 and connected matters, whereby the High Court of Delhi, confirming the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter, “Tribunal” for short) has held that the variable licence fee paid by the respondents-assessees under the New Telecom Policy, 1999 ((hereinafter referred to as “Policy of 1999” for the sake of convenience), is revenue expenditure in nature and is to be deducted under Section 3 7 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) is assailed in these appeals. Some of these appeals also arise from judgments passed by the High Courts of Bombay and Karnataka, following the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, dated 19 December, 2013.

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.

Bird’s eye view of the controversy:

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 nature, Section 35ABB of the Act.

Brief facts of the case:

6. The National Telecom Policy of 1994 was substituted by the New Telecom Policy of 1999 dated 22 July, 1999. The said Policy of 1999 stipulated that the licencee would be required to pay a one-time entry fee and additionally, a licence fee on a percentage share of gross revenue. The entry fee chargeable would be the fee payable by the existing operator upto 31 July, 1999, calculated upto the said date and adjusted upon notional extension of the effective date. Subsequently, w.e.f. 01 August, 1999, licence fee was payable on a percentage of Annual Gross Revenue (“AGR”, for short) earned. The quantum of revenue share to be charged as licence fee was to be finally decided after obtaining recommendation of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) but in the meanwhile, the Government of India fixed 15% of the gross revenue of the licencee as provisional licence fee. On receipt of TRAI’s recommendation by the Government, adjustment of the dues was to be made.

6.1. Clause 7 of the Policy of 1999 stipulated that upon migration thereto, the licencees would forego the right of operating in a regime of limited number of operators as per the existing licensing agreement and would operate in a multiple licence regime, that is, additional licences without any limit could be issued in a given service area. The period of licence was stated to be twenty years from the effective date of the existing licence agreement, that is, the 1994 Agreement. Migration to the Policy of 1999 was on the condition and premise that the conditions should be accepted as a package in entirety and simultaneously and all legal proceedings shall be withdrawn and no dispute relating to the period upto 31 July, 1999 shall be raised at any future date. If all the terms were accepted, amendments to the existing licence agreement


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top