Bharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 167

SANJIV KHANNA, S. V. N. BHATTI
Bharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mrs. Alka Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. V C Bharathi, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prahlad Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Ms. Sayree Basu Mullick, Adv. Mr. M.s. Ananth, Adv. Ms. Syree Basu Mullick, Adv. Ms. Madhvi Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Sayaree Basu Mallik, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Abhinabh Garg, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Ms. Disha Jham, Adv. Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Visalaksh, Adv. Mr. Udit Jain, Adv. Mr. Archit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Arihant Tater, Adv. Mr. Ajitesh Dayal Sisngh, Adv. Mr. Ajitesh Dayal Singh, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vikas, AOR

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

This common judgment decides the aforestated appeals preferred by the Revenue and the assessees, who are cellular mobile telephone service providers. The issue relates to the liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961¹[“The Act”, for short.] on the amount which, as per the Revenue, is a commission payable to an agent by the assessees under the franchise/distributorship agreement between the assessees and the franchisees/distributors. As per the assessees, neither are they paying a commission or brokerage to the franchisees/distributors, nor are the franchisees/distributors their agents. The High Courts of Delhi and Calcutta have held that the assessees were liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194-H of the Act, whereas the High Courts of Rajasthan, Karnataka and Bombay have held that Section 194-H of the Act is not attracted to the circumstances under consideration.

2. To avoid prolixity and repetition, we are not referring to the facts and arguments in the beginning, and will preface our judgment by reproducing Section 194-H of the Act and explaining its contours. The relevant portion of Section 194-H reads a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or "criticized" present in the provided case summaries. Therefore, based solely on the information given, no case is identified as bad law.

Followed/Consistently Treated:

The case <00100080822> (Bharti Cellular Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024) appears to be a recent case (2024) and references prior legal principles and decisions, such as AIR 1988 SC 1250. Although the treatment pattern is not explicitly stated, the context suggests it may be aligned with existing legal standards, especially since it involves a recent judgment confirming or applying established law.

The case <00100083002> (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024) also appears to be a recent decision citing similar or related issues, possibly following established legal principles regarding service tax and related judgments, such as SCC 641 (2023). Again, no explicit indication of deviation or negative treatment is provided.

The case <00100076545> (Tax Deduction at Source) discusses the interpretation of Section 194H of the IT Act. The language suggests it is stating a legal position rather than criticizing or questioning prior law, implying it is being followed or applied in current legal understanding.

The case <00100060665> (Amount paid by Doordarshan) states a legal conclusion regarding commission payments, which appears to be a straightforward statement of law without indication of its treatment status.

All cases are presented with limited contextual information. There are no explicit references to subsequent treatment, judicial criticism, or overruling. The treatment patterns are inferred based on the language used, which generally indicates statements of law or recent judgments without indicating their judicial treatment status. Therefore, the treatment of these cases remains uncertain, but based on the available data, none are explicitly overruled or criticized.

**Source :** Union Of India VS Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Supreme Court HT Media Limited VS Principal Commissioner Delhi, South Goods and Service Tax - Supreme Court Singapore Airlines Ltd. VS C. I. T. Delhi - Supreme Court Securities And Exchange Board Of India VS Sunil Krishna Khaitan - Supreme Court Bhopal Sugar Industries LTD. VS Sales Tax Officer, Bhopal - Supreme Court Director, Prasar Bharati VS Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram - Supreme Court AHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - Gujarat Commissioner of Income Tax VS Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association - Supreme Court

2024 Supreme(SC) 167

SANJIV KHANNA, S. V. N. BHATTIBharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) – AppellantVersusAssistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata – Respondent

Cases Referred (7)

Judicial Analysis

SANJIV KHANNA, S. V. N. BHATTI
Bharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata – Respondent