IDEA CELLULAR LTD. THR. ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVII — C.A. No. 1203/2011

Case under Section XIV-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010075552010

Filing Date

09-Mar-2010

Registration No

C.A. No. 1203/2011

Diary Number

7555/2010

Order Date

28-Feb-2024

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed as withdrawn

Last updated 03-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XIV-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.IDEA CELLULAR LTD. THR. ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

    Adv. E. C. AGRAWALA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVII

    Adv. ANIL KATIYAR B. V. BALARAM DAS (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [Caveat] B. V. BALARAM DAS (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Sep-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

  3. 28-Sep-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

  4. 15-Apr-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  5. 13-Apr-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  6. 15-Feb-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 01-Dec-2016

    ROPView PDF

  8. 01-Dec-2016

    ROPView PDF

  9. 30-Nov-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  10. 10-Aug-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  11. 12-Apr-2016

    ROPView PDF

  12. 12-Apr-2016

    ROPView PDF

  13. 15-Dec-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  14. 26-Nov-2015

    ROPView PDF

  15. 26-Nov-2015

    ROPView PDF

  16. 14-Oct-2015

    ROPView PDF

  17. 14-Oct-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  18. 14-Oct-2015

    ROPView PDF

  19. 10-Sep-2015

    ROPView PDF

  20. 10-Sep-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  21. 10-Sep-2015

    ROPView PDF

  22. 02-Jul-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  23. 02-Jul-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  24. 02-Jul-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  25. 07-May-2015

    ROPView PDF

  26. 07-May-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  27. 07-May-2015

    ROPView PDF

  28. 06-May-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  29. 15-Apr-2015

    ROPView PDF

  30. 15-Apr-2015

    ROPView PDF

  31. 11-Mar-2015

    ROPView PDF

  32. 11-Mar-2015

    ROPView PDF

  33. 10-Mar-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  34. 27-Feb-2015

    ROPView PDF

  35. 27-Feb-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  36. 27-Feb-2015

    ROPView PDF

  37. 18-Feb-2015

    ROPView PDF

  38. 18-Feb-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  39. 20-Jan-2015

    ROPView PDF

  40. 20-Jan-2015

    ROPView PDF

  41. 02-Dec-2014

    ROPView PDF

  42. 02-Dec-2014

    ROPView PDF

  43. 19-Nov-2014

    ROPView PDF

  44. 19-Nov-2014

    ROPView PDF

  45. 05-Nov-2014

    ROPView PDF

  46. 05-Nov-2014

    Office ReportView PDF

  47. 05-Nov-2014

    ROPView PDF

  48. 25-Nov-2013

    ROPView PDF

  49. 08-Jul-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  50. 23-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  51. 31-Jan-2011

    ROPView PDF

  52. 11-May-2010

    ROPView PDF

  53. 11-Mar-2010

    ROPView PDF

  54. 09-Mar-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 1203/2011

  55. [ 2024 INSC 148 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters

Lead case: C.A. No. 7257/2011

PDF 1PDF 2PDF 3PDF 4PDF 5PDF 6PDF 7PDF 8PDF 9PDF 10PDF 11PDF 12PDF 13PDF 14PDF 15PDF 16PDF 17PDF 18PDF 19
View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Civil Appeal No. 7257 of 2011 & Others Case: Bharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Court: Supreme Court of India | Date: February 28, 2024 Issue: Whether cellular mobile telecom companies must deduct tax at source (TDS) under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on discounts provided to franchisees/distributors for prepaid starter kits and recharge vouchers. Outcome: The Supreme Court held that Section 194-H is not applicable. Telecom companies are NOT required to deduct TDS on income earned by distributors/franchisees. The Court allowed appeals by assessees (telecom providers) challenging Calcutta High Court's decision and dismissed Revenue's appeals against decisions of Rajasthan, Karnataka, Bombay, and Orissa High Courts. Key Finding: The relationship between telecom operators and franchisees/distributors constitutes a principal-to-principal commercial relationship (independent contractor arrangement), not a principal-agent relationship. Since distributors independently determine their profits from selling to retailers/customers—not receiving commission from the telecom company—TDS obligation does not arise. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts District Courts
Search Another Case