{"id":259220,"date":"2008-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2"},"modified":"2015-07-18T21:54:00","modified_gmt":"2015-07-18T16:24:00","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed<\/div>\n
             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                             Judgment delivered on: 31.10.2008\n\n+                      I.T.A. 1120\/2007\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                           ....Petitioner\n\n                             - Versus -\n\nBHARTI CELLULAR LTD                                  ...Respondent<\/pre>\n
                                 WITH<\/p>\n
+                                I.T.A. 697\/2008<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
\nTAX (TDS)                                            …Petitioner
\n                                   Versus<\/p>\n
ESCOTEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
\nLIMITED                                             …Respondent<\/p>\n
                                   WITH<\/p>\n
+                                I.T.A. 1177\/2007<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVII                       …Petitioner<\/p>\n
                                 Versus<\/p>\n
HUTCHISON ESSAR TELECOM LTD                         …Respondent<\/p>\n
                                   WITH<\/p>\n
+                                I.T.A.1020\/2008<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                           …Petitioner<\/p>\n
                                 Versus<\/p>\n
ESCOTEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS                       …. Respondent<\/p>\n
                                 WITH<\/p>\n
+                                I.T.A. 698\/2008<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                           …Petitioner<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                          Page No.1 of 21<\/span>
\n                           Versus<\/p>\n
ESCOTEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
\nLIMITED                                       …Respondent.<\/p>\n
\n\n                          WITH\n\n+                         ITA 1154\/2007\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                   ... Petitioner\n\n                       - Versus -\n\nBHARTI CELLULAR LTD                          ...Respondent\n\n                             WITH\n\n+                         I.T.A. 1155\/2007\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                     ... Petitioner\n\n                       - Versus -\n\nBHARTI CELLULAR LTD                            ...Respondent\n\n                          WITH\n\n+                         I.T.A. 1129\/2007\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                     ... Petitioner\n\n                       - Versus -\n\nBHARTI CELLULAR LTD                            ...Respondent\n\n                          WITH\n\n+                         I.T.A1159\/2007\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                     ... Petitioner\n\n                       - Versus -\n\nBHARTI CELLULAR LTD                            ...Respondent\n\n                          WITH\n\n\n\n\nITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                      Page No.2 of 21<\/span>\n +                                   I.T.A. 1135\/2007\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                  ... Petitioner\n\n                                - Versus -\n\nBHARTI CELLULAR LTD                                         ...Respondent\n\n                                    WITH\n\n+                                   I.T.A. 1171\/2007\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                  ... Petitioner\n\n                                - Versus -\n\nBHARTI CELLULAR LTD                                         ...Respondent\n\n                                    WITH\n\n+                                   I.T.A. 1121\/2007\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                   ....Petitioner\n\n                                - Versus -\n\nBHARTI CELLULAR LTD                                         ...Respondent\n\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\nFor the Appellant     Mrs Premlata Bansal in ITA 1120\/07, 1020\/08,\n<\/pre>\n
                      697\/08 and 698\/2008, 1121\/07, 1171\/07, 1135\/07,
\n                      1159\/07, 1129\/07, 1155\/07, 1154\/07
\n                      Ms Rashmi Chopra in ITA 1177\/2007<\/p>\n
For the Respondent      Mr Tarun Sharma in ITA 1177\/2007, 1145\/07.\n<\/p>\n
                        Mr Kanan Kapur in ITA 1120\/2007, 1121\/07. 1171\/07,
\n                        1159\/07, 1129\/07, 1155\/07, 1154\/07
\n                        None for respondents in ITA 1020\/08, 697\/08, 698\/08.<\/p>\n
CORAM:-\n<\/p>\n
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
\nHON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKHDHER.\n<\/p>\n
     1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
\n            the judgment ?                                      YES<\/p>\n
     2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                   YES<\/p>\n
     3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? YES<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                                   Page No.3 of 21<\/span>
\n BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J<\/p>\n
1.            In all these appeals under Section 260A<\/a> of the Income<\/p>\n
Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \u2017the said Act’), the<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law have been framed:-<\/p>\n
        (a) Whether the payments made by the assessee to the
\n            MTNL\/other companies for the services provided
\n            through interconnect\/port\/access\/toll were liable for
\n            tax deduction at source in view of the provisions of
\n            section 194J<\/a> of the Act?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (b) Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in holding that the
\n            payment for use of services for MTNL\/other
\n            companies via the interconnect\/port\/access\/toll by the
\n            assessee would not fall within the purview of
\n            payments as provided for under section 194J<\/a> of the
\n            Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.           The facts in all these appeals are similar.          The<\/p>\n
respondents\/assessees in these appeals are companies engaged in the<\/p>\n
business of providing cellular telephone facilities to their<\/p>\n
subscribers. The assessees\/respondents had been granted licences by<\/p>\n
the Department of Telecommunication for operating in their<\/p>\n
respective specified circles. The assessees are required to set up<\/p>\n
their own equipments and necessary infrastructure for operating and<\/p>\n
maintaining their networks. The licences granted to the assessees<\/p>\n
stipulated that the Department of Telecommunication\/MTNL\/BSNL<\/p>\n
would continue to operate in the service areas for which the licences<\/p>\n
were issued. In respect of subscribers which fell within the specified<\/p>\n
circles of the assessees, the calls would be handled exclusively<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                             Page No.4 of 21<\/span>
\n through the assessees’ own networks. However, where calls were to<\/p>\n
be made by subscribers of one network to another network, such<\/p>\n
calls are necessarily to be routed through MTNL\/BSNL. The inter<\/p>\n
connection between the two networks is provided by MTNL\/BSNL<\/p>\n
at interconnection points known as Ports.         For the purposes of<\/p>\n
providing this interconnection, the assessees have entered into<\/p>\n
agreements with MTNL\/BSNL etc. The agreements are regulated by<\/p>\n
the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Under these<\/p>\n
agreements,      the    assessees\/respondents   are   required   to   pay<\/p>\n
interconnection, access charges and port charges. As per the policy<\/p>\n
document of TRAI, interconnection has been understood to mean the<\/p>\n
commercial and technical arrangements under which service<\/p>\n
providers connect their equipments, networks and services to enable<\/p>\n
their customers to have access to the customers, services and<\/p>\n
networks of other service providers. Interconnection charges are<\/p>\n
paid by the interconnection seeker to the interconnection provider.<\/p>\n
3.           The manner in which this system works can be explained<\/p>\n
by examples.\n<\/p>\n
\n
Example 1: Assume that subscriber \u2015A\u2016 of Airtel intends to call<\/p>\n
subscriber \u2015X\u2016 of MTNL within New Delhi. Subscriber \u2015A’s call<\/p>\n
which originates within the circle of Airtel would have to be handed<\/p>\n
over (through interconnection) to MTNL’s network so as to reach<\/p>\n
subscriber \u2015X\u2016.        In such a case, while Airtel would recover the<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                                  Page No.5 of 21<\/span>
\n normal call charges from its subscriber \u2015A\u2016, it would have to pay a<\/p>\n
part of it to MTNL for its inter-connect usage charges.<\/p>\n
Example 2: Assume that subscriber \u2015A\u2016 of IDEA in Maharashtra<\/p>\n
wants to make a call to subscriber \u2015B\u2016 of Airtel at New Delhi. The<\/p>\n
call would originate within the IDEA network in Maharashtra and<\/p>\n
would have to be inter-connected with BSNL (being the national<\/p>\n
long distance service provider) which would carry the call to the<\/p>\n
Airtel Delhi network and after interconnection would be transferred<\/p>\n
to the subscriber \u2015B\u2016 of Airtel, Delhi. In such a case, following the<\/p>\n
principle of the inter-connect seeker paying the charges to the inter-<\/p>\n
connect provider, Airtel – Delhi would raise an invoice for inter-<\/p>\n
connect charges on BSNL which, in turn, would raise an invoice on<\/p>\n
IDEA (Maharashtra) for the national long distance inter-connect<\/p>\n
charges. IDEA (Maharashtra) would recover the normal call charges<\/p>\n
from its subscriber \u2015A\u2016 and make the payment to BSNL as per the<\/p>\n
invoice for the national long distance inter-connect charges. BSNL,<\/p>\n
in turn, would make the payment to Airtel (Delhi) for the local inter-<\/p>\n
connect charges.\n<\/p>\n
\n
4.           From the above examples, it is clear that MTNL\/BSNL or<\/p>\n
other companies providing the interconnection access\/ports are<\/p>\n
entitled     to    charge   those   networks   which      seek   such<\/p>\n
interconnection\/port access facility for completing their calls. The<\/p>\n
questions which have been framed in these appeals are related to the<\/p>\n
nature of these charges.       According to the Revenue, the said<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                             Page No.6 of 21<\/span>
\n interconnect\/port access charges are liable for tax deduction at<\/p>\n
source in view of the provisions of Section 194J<\/a> of the said Act and<\/p>\n
that these interconnect\/port access charges are in the nature of fees<\/p>\n
for technical services.\n<\/p>\n
\n
5.           In the present appeals, it is the case of the Revenue that<\/p>\n
the assessees were liable to deduct tax at source when they made the<\/p>\n
payments in respect of the inter-connect\/port access charges. It was<\/p>\n
contended before us that the non-deduction\/short deduction under<\/p>\n
section 201<\/a> (1) of the said Act is not required to be made good by the<\/p>\n
assessee inasmuch as MTNL\/BSNL\/other companies who would<\/p>\n
have been the deductees, have already declared receipts of the<\/p>\n
payments made by the assessees in their respective returns of income<\/p>\n
tax and have paid the entire tax.       The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
Appellant however, contended that the respondents\/assessees were<\/p>\n
liable to pay interest under section 201<\/a> (1A) of the said Act, as they<\/p>\n
had not deducted tax at source which they were liable to deduct<\/p>\n
under section 194J<\/a> in respect of the payments made by them to<\/p>\n
MTNL\/BSNL\/other companies for inter-connect\/port access charges<\/p>\n
as the same were fees for technical services.       According to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel, the provision of the interconnect\/port access facility<\/p>\n
was itself a service. According to her, the agreement between the<\/p>\n
parties themselves described the arrangement            as providing<\/p>\n
telecommunication services. It was then contended that since the<\/p>\n
services were of a technical nature in the sense that it was connected<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                              Page No.7 of 21<\/span>
\n with the use of machinery involving expertise, skill and technical<\/p>\n
knowledge, the charges paid by the respondents\/assessees were<\/p>\n
nothing but fees for technical services.\n<\/p>\n
\n
6.           On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondents submitted that the payments made by the respondents to<\/p>\n
MTNL\/other companies in respect of interconnect\/port\/access<\/p>\n
charges were not covered within the expression \u2015fees for technical<\/p>\n
services\u2016 as used in section 194J<\/a> of the said Act. They submitted<\/p>\n
that their case was clearly covered by the decision of the Madras<\/p>\n
High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. and<\/p>\n
Another v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and others<\/a>:<\/p>\n
[2001] 251 ITR 53 (Mad), wherein the payment made by a<\/p>\n
subscriber to the provider of cellular mobile facility was held not to<\/p>\n
amount to fees for technical services within the meaning of Section<\/p>\n
194J<\/a> read with Section 9<\/a> (1) (vii), Explanation 2 of the said Act. It<\/p>\n
was contended that the mere collection of a fee for use of a standard<\/p>\n
facility provided to all those willing to pay for it does not amount to<\/p>\n
the fee having been received for \u2015technical services.\u2016 It was also<\/p>\n
contended that unless and until, there is an element of human<\/p>\n
interface, the facility of interconnection\/port access cannot be<\/p>\n
regarded as a technical service. Reliance were also placed on an<\/p>\n
earlier decision of this Court in the case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd v<\/p>\n
Central BVoard of Direct Taxes and Anr : (1979) 118 ITR 312,<\/p>\n
which has considered the expression \u2015technical service\u2016 within the<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                              Page No.8 of 21<\/span>
\n context of Section 80-O<\/a>. It was contended that in the said decision,<\/p>\n
it was pointed out that \u2015technical service\u2016 has two components. The<\/p>\n
first is the use of tools and the second being the application of human<\/p>\n
reason to the properties of matter and energy. It was, therefore,<\/p>\n
contended that unless and until the element of human interface was<\/p>\n
present, the facility provided by the MTNL\/other companies could<\/p>\n
not be regarded as a \u2015technical service\u2016.\n<\/p>\n
\n
7.           It was also contended that since the expression \u2015fee for<\/p>\n
technical service\u2016 as appearing in Section 194J<\/a>, is to be construed in<\/p>\n
the same manner as given in Explanation 2 of Section 9<\/a> (1) (vii) of<\/p>\n
the said Act, the entire expression \u2015managerial, technical or<\/p>\n
consultancy services\u2016 would have to be considered. Thus, the word<\/p>\n
\u2015technical\u2016 would take colour from the words \u2015managerial” and<\/p>\n
\u2015consultancy\u2016 and cannot be considered in the general or wider<\/p>\n
sense. Since both managerial and consultancy services, by their<\/p>\n
very nature, involve a human element, the technical services which<\/p>\n
are relevant for the purpose of Section 194J<\/a> would be those technical<\/p>\n
services which involve human interface\/element.<\/p>\n
8.           It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that<\/p>\n
the entire process of making a call and switching the call from one<\/p>\n
network to the other is done automatically on the basis of machines<\/p>\n
without the provisions of any service by human beings. Therefore, it<\/p>\n
was submitted on behalf of the respondents, the interconnect\/port<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                              Page No.9 of 21<\/span>
\n access facility cannot be regarded as a technical service.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the payments made for such interconnect\/port access<\/p>\n
charges could not fall within the meaning of \u2015fees for technical<\/p>\n
service\u2016 as used in Section 194J<\/a> of the said Act.<\/p>\n
9.           In        rejoinder,   the   learned   counsel     for     the<\/p>\n
Appellant\/Revenue submitted that the decision of the Madras High<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Skycell (supra) is clearly distinguishable. She<\/p>\n
submitted that in the case of Skycell (supra), the payments which<\/p>\n
were under contemplation, were the payments by individual<\/p>\n
subscribers to their respective cellular mobile service providers,<\/p>\n
whereas in the present appeals, the payments in question are those<\/p>\n
made by the cellular mobile service providers to MTNL\/other<\/p>\n
companies for interconnect\/port access charges. Consequently, she<\/p>\n
submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in holding that the<\/p>\n
payments made to MTNL\/other companies in respect of the<\/p>\n
interconnect\/port access charges were outside the purview of Section<\/p>\n
194J<\/a> of the said Act, was not correct in law. She contended that the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, having followed the decision of the Madras High Court in<\/p>\n
the case of Skycell (supra), had erred in law inasmuch as that<\/p>\n
decision was clearly distinguishable.\n<\/p>\n
\n
10.          Section 194J<\/a> which relates to \u2015fees for professional or<\/p>\n
technical services\u2016, so much as is relevant, reads as under:-<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                                  Page No.10 of 21<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
       “194J. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a
\n      Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying
\n      to a resident any sum by way of–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (a)     fees for professional services, or\n               (b)     fees for technical services,\n\n                        xxxx        xxxx       xxxx        xxxx\n\n<\/pre>\n
      shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of
\n      the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by
\n      issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode,
\n      whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to five per
\n      cent of such sum as income-tax on income comprised
\n      therein :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             xxxx       xxxx        xxxx       xxxx<\/p>\n
      Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a) \u2015professional services\u2016 means services rendered
\n               by a person in the course of carrying on legal,
\n               medical, engineering or architectural profession
\n               or the profession of accountancy or technical
\n               consultancy or interior decoration or advertising
\n               or such other profession as is notified by the
\n               Board for the purposes of section 44AA<\/a> or of
\n               this section;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b) \u2015fees for technical services\u2016 shall have the same
\n               meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of
\n               sub-section (1) of section 9<\/a>;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            xxx         xxx         xxx        xxx”<\/p>\n
11.          It is apparent that in respect of fees for technical services<\/p>\n
tax is to be deducted at source at 5% (as it then was). It is also clear<\/p>\n
that the expression \u2015fees for technical services\u2016 has the same<\/p>\n
meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of<\/p>\n
Section 9<\/a>. The said Explanation 2 reads as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Explanation 2.–For the purposes of this clause, \u2015fees
\n       for technical services\u2016 means any consideration
\n       (including any lump sum consideration) for the<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                                Page No.11 of 21<\/span>
\n        rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy
\n       services (including the provision of services of
\n       technical or other personnel) but does not include
\n       consideration for any construction, assembly, mining
\n       or like project undertaken by the recipient or
\n       consideration which would be income of the recipient
\n       chargeable under the head \u2015Salaries\u2016.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The aforesaid explanation makes it clear that \u2015fees for technical<\/p>\n
services\u2016 means any consideration (including any lump sum<\/p>\n
consideration) for the rendering of any \u2015managerial, technical or<\/p>\n
consultancy services\u2016 but does not include consideration for any<\/p>\n
construction, assembly, mining or like products in the country by the<\/p>\n
recipients or consideration which would be income of the recipients<\/p>\n
chargeable under the head \u2015salaries\u2016. The said definition is in two<\/p>\n
parts. The first part is \u2015means and includes\u2016 type of definition and<\/p>\n
the second part is \u2015does not include\u2016 definition. In the present<\/p>\n
appeals we are not concerned with the second part. The entire focus<\/p>\n
is on attracted to the first part and that, too, to the expression<\/p>\n
“consideration …. for the rendering of any managerial, technical<\/p>\n
for consultancy services.” It is only if the payments made by the<\/p>\n
respondents\/assessees to MTNL\/other companies in respect of<\/p>\n
interconnect\/port access charges fall within the ambit of this<\/p>\n
expression that the said payments could be regarded as fees for<\/p>\n
technical services as contemplated under Section 194J<\/a> of the said<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.          In Skycell (supra), a learned single judge of the Madras<\/p>\n
High Court noted that installation and operatrion of sophisticated<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                           Page No.12 of 21<\/span>
\n equipments with a view to earn income by allowing customers to<\/p>\n
avail of the benefit of the user of such equipment does not result in<\/p>\n
the provision of technical service to the customer for a fee. It was<\/p>\n
also held that technical service referred to in Explanation 2 to<\/p>\n
Section 9<\/a> (1) (vii) contemplated the rendering of a \u2015service\u2016 to the<\/p>\n
payer of the fee and that mere collection of a \u2015fee\u2016 for use of a<\/p>\n
standard facility provided to all those willing to pay for it did not<\/p>\n
amount to the fee having been received for technical services. We<\/p>\n
find ourselves to be in agreement with the views expressed by the<\/p>\n
learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Skycell (supra).<\/p>\n
However, we still have to deal with the submissions made by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the Appellants\/Revenue that the payments that<\/p>\n
were considered in the case of Skycell (supra) were those made by a<\/p>\n
subscriber to the cellular mobile telephone facility provider and not<\/p>\n
by one cellular network provider to another.     For this purpose, we<\/p>\n
must examine the appeals at hand de hors the decision of the Madras<\/p>\n
High Court in Skycell (supra).\n<\/p>\n
\n
13.          We have already pointed out that the expression \u2015fees for<\/p>\n
technical services\u2016 as appearing in section 194J<\/a> of the said Act has<\/p>\n
the same meaning as given to the expression in Explanation 2 to<\/p>\n
section 9<\/a> (1) (vii) of the said Act. In the said Explanation the<\/p>\n
expression \u2015fees for technical services\u2016 means any consideration for<\/p>\n
rendering of any \u2015managerial, technical or consultancy services\u2016.<\/p>\n
The word \u2015technical\u2016 is preceded by the word \u2015managerial\u2016 and<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                            Page No.13 of 21<\/span>
\n succeeded by the word \u2015consultancy\u2016.            Since the expression<\/p>\n
\u2015technical services\u2016 is in doubt and is unclear, the rule of noscitur a<\/p>\n
sociis is clearly applicable. The said rule is explained in Maxwell on<\/p>\n
The Interpretation of Statutes (Twelfth Edition) in the following<\/p>\n
words:-\n<\/p>\n
       \u2015Where two or more words which are susceptible of
\n       analogous meaning are coupled together, noscitur a
\n       sociis, they are understood to be used in their cognate
\n       sense. They take, as it were, their colour from each
\n       other, the meaning of the more general being restricted to
\n       a sense analogous to that of the less general.\u2016<\/p>\n
This would mean that the word \u2015technical\u2016 would take colour from<\/p>\n
the words \u2015managerial\u2016 and \u2015consultancy\u2016, between which it is<\/p>\n
sandwiched. The word \u2015managerial\u2016 has been defined in the Shorter<\/p>\n
Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Edition as:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       \u2015of pertaining to, or characteristic of a manager, esp. a
\n       professional manager of or within an organization,
\n       business, establishment, etc.\u2016<\/p>\n
The word \u2015manager\u2016 has been defined, inter alia, as:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       \u2015a person whose office it is to manage an organization,
\n       business establishment, or public institution, or part of
\n       one; a person with the primarily executive or
\n       supervisory function within an organization etc; a
\n       person controlling the activities of a person or team in
\n       sports, entertainment, etc.\u2016<\/p>\n
It is, therefore, clear that a managerial service would be one which<\/p>\n
pertains to or has the characteristic of a manager. It is obvious that<\/p>\n
the expression \u2015manager\u2016 and consequently \u2015managerial service\u2016 has<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                                Page No.14 of 21<\/span>
\n a definite human element attached to it. To put it bluntly, a machine<\/p>\n
cannot be a manager.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.          Similarly, the word \u2015consultancy\u2016 has been defined in the<\/p>\n
said Dictionary as \u2015the work or position of a consultant; a<\/p>\n
department of consultants.\u2016 \u2015Consultant\u2016 itself has been defined,<\/p>\n
inter alia, as \u2015a person who gives professional advice or services in a<\/p>\n
specialized field.\u2016 It is obvious that the word \u2015consultant\u2016 is a<\/p>\n
derivative of the word \u2015consult\u2016 which entails deliberations,<\/p>\n
consideration, conferring with someone, conferring about or upon a<\/p>\n
matter. Consult has also been defined in the said Dictionary as \u2015ask<\/p>\n
advice for, seek counsel or a professional opinion from; refer to (a<\/p>\n
source of information); seek permission or approval from for a<\/p>\n
proposed action\u2016. It is obvious that the service of consultancy also<\/p>\n
necessarily entails human intervention.        The consultant, who<\/p>\n
provides the consultancy service, has to be a human being.           A<\/p>\n
machine cannot be regarded as a consultant.\n<\/p>\n
\n
15.          From the above discussion, it is apparent that both the<\/p>\n
words \u2015managerial\u2016 and \u2015consultancy\u2016 involve a human element.<\/p>\n
And, both, managerial service and consultancy service, are provided<\/p>\n
by humans. Consequently, applying the rule of noscitur a sociis, the<\/p>\n
word \u2015technical\u2016 as appearing in Explanation 2 to Section 9<\/a> (1) (vii)<\/p>\n
would also have to be construed as involving a human element. But,<\/p>\n
the     facility       provided   by   MTNL\/other    companies      for<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                             Page No.15 of 21<\/span>
\n interconnection\/port access is one which is provided automatically<\/p>\n
by machines. It is independently provided by the use of technology<\/p>\n
and that too, sophisticated technology, but that does not mean that<\/p>\n
MTNL\/other companies which provide such facilities are rendering<\/p>\n
any technical services as contemplated in Explanation 2 to Section 9<\/a><\/p>\n
(1) (vii) of the said Act. This is so because the expression \u2015technical<\/p>\n
services\u2016 takes colour from the expressions \u2015managerial services\u2016<\/p>\n
and \u2015consultancy services\u2016 which necessarily involve a human<\/p>\n
element or, what is now days fashionably called, human interface.<\/p>\n
In the facts of the present appeals, the services rendered qua<\/p>\n
interconnection\/Port access do not involve any human interface and,<\/p>\n
therefore, the same cannot be regarded as \u2015technical services\u2016 as<\/p>\n
contemplated under Section 194J<\/a> of the said Act.<\/p>\n
16.          Since we have applied the rule of noscitur a sociis, it<\/p>\n
would be necessary to indicate that this rule or principle has been<\/p>\n
applied and accepted by the Supreme Court whenever the meaning of<\/p>\n
a word, which falls within a group of words, is unclear and the<\/p>\n
intention of the legislature is doubtful. In Godfrey Phillips India<\/p>\n
Ltd and Another v. State of U.P. and Others<\/a>: (2005) 2 SCC 515, a<\/p>\n
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was considering the<\/p>\n
meaning of the word \u2015Luxuries\u2016 as appearing in Entry 62 of the List<\/p>\n
II of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution which empowers the State<\/p>\n
Legislature to make laws with respect to \u2015taxes on luxuries including<\/p>\n
taxes on entertainment, amusement, betting and gambling.\u2016 The<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                             Page No.16 of 21<\/span>
\n Supreme Court was of the view that the general meaning of \u2015luxury\u2016<\/p>\n
had been explained or clarified and must be understood in a sense<\/p>\n
analogous to that of the less general words such as \u2015entertainment\u2016,<\/p>\n
\u2015amusements\u2016, \u2015gambling\u2016 and \u2015betting\u2016, which were clubbed with<\/p>\n
it. The Supreme Court, employing the said principle of noscitur a<\/p>\n
sociis, noted that this principle of interpretation had received the<\/p>\n
approval of the Supreme Court in an earlier decision in Rainbow<\/p>\n
Steels Ltd. v. CST: (1981) 2 SCC 141. The Supreme Court also<\/p>\n
noted that earlier, indiscriminate application of this rule was doubted<\/p>\n
in the case of The State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor<\/p>\n
Sabha<\/a>: AIR 1960 SC 610. However, after referring to the said<\/p>\n
decision (Hospital Mazdoor Sabha), the Supreme Court in Godfrey<\/p>\n
Phillips India Ltd (supra) observed that they did not read the said<\/p>\n
decision as excluding the application of the principle of noscitur a<\/p>\n
sociis to the case before them inasmuch as it had been amply<\/p>\n
demonstrated that the word \u2015luxury\u2016 in Entry 62 was doubtful and<\/p>\n
had been defined and construed in different senses. The Supreme<\/p>\n
Court further observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       \u201581. We are aware that the maxim of noscitur a sociis
\n       may be a treacherous one unless the “societas” to which
\n       the “socii” belong, are known. The risk may be present
\n       when there is no other factor except contiguity to
\n       suggest the “societas”. But where there is, as here, a
\n       term of wide denotation which is not free from
\n       ambiguity, the addition of the words such as \u2015including\u2016
\n       is sufficiently indicative of the societas. As we have
\n       said, the word \u2015includes\u2016 in the present context
\n       indicates a commonality or shared features or attributes
\n       of the including word with the included.\u2016<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                              Page No.17 of 21<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 17.          In the appeals before us it is obvious that the meaning of<\/p>\n
the expression \u2015technical services\u2016 by itself, is far from clear. It is<\/p>\n
also clear that the word \u2015technical\u2016 has been used in the \u2015society\u2016 of<\/p>\n
the words \u2015managerial\u2016 and \u2015consultancy\u2016. In such a situation, the<\/p>\n
rule would clearly apply and, therefore, the expression \u2015technical<\/p>\n
services\u2016 would have to take colour from the expressions<\/p>\n
\u2015managerial services\u2016 and \u2015consultancy services.\u2016<\/p>\n
18.          To conclude the discussion on the application of the rule<\/p>\n
of noscitur a sociis, we think that a reference to the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
decision in the case of Stonecraft Enterprises v. Commissioner of<\/p>\n
Income Tax<\/a>: (1999) 3 SCC 343 would be apposite. In that case the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court was required to interpret the provisions of Section<\/p>\n
80-HHC<\/a> (2) (b) of the said Act relating to assessment years 1985-86,<\/p>\n
1987-88 and 1988-89. In the said sub-section (2) (b) of Section 80-<\/p>\n
HHC, it was provided that the Section did not apply to the following<\/p>\n
goods or merchandise, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
       (i) mineral oil; and<\/p>\n
       (ii) minerals and ores.\n<\/p>\n
The question that arose before the Supreme Court was whether<\/p>\n
granite fell within the meaning of the word \u2015minerals\u2016.            The<\/p>\n
contention of the assessee before the Supreme Court was that while<\/p>\n
Granite was a mineral in the general sense, it was not a mineral for<\/p>\n
the purposes of Section 80-HHC<\/a> and, therefore, the deduction<\/p>\n
provided for therein was available to the assessee who was in the<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                             Page No.18 of 21<\/span>
\n business of exporting granite.        The Supreme Court noted the<\/p>\n
arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee based upon the<\/p>\n
doctrine of noscitur a sociis that the word \u2015minerals\u2016 in Section 80-<\/p>\n
HHC should be read in the context of the words \u2015ores\u2016 which it was<\/p>\n
associated with and must draw colour therefrom. It was submitted<\/p>\n
that the word \u2015minerals\u2016 must be read as referring only to such<\/p>\n
minerals as are extracted from ores and not others.         While the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court agreed that the doctrine of noscitur a sociis was<\/p>\n
applicable, it held that the word \u2015minerals\u2016, in sub-section (2) (b) of<\/p>\n
Section 80-HHC<\/a> must be read in the context of both \u2015mineral oil\u2016<\/p>\n
and \u2015ores\u2016 and not just \u2015ores\u2016. The Supreme Court held that these<\/p>\n
three words taken together are intended to encompass all that may be<\/p>\n
extracted from the earth. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that<\/p>\n
all minerals extracted from the earth, granite included, must,<\/p>\n
therefore, be held to be covered by the provisions of sub-section (2)<\/p>\n
(b) of Section 80-HHC<\/a>, and the exporter thereof was, therefore,<\/p>\n
disentitled to the benefit of that section.\n<\/p>\n
\n
19.          From this decision, it is apparent that the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
employed the doctrine of noscitur a sociis and held that the word<\/p>\n
\u2015minerals\u2016 took colour from the words \u2015mineral oil which preceded<\/p>\n
it and the word \u2015ores\u2016 which succeeded it. A somewhat similar<\/p>\n
situation has arisen in the present appeals where the word \u2015technical\u2016<\/p>\n
is preceded by the word \u2015managerial\u2016 and succeeded by the word<\/p>\n
\u2015consultancy\u2016. Therefore, the word \u2015technical\u2016 has to take colour<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                             Page No.19 of 21<\/span>
\n from the word \u2015managerial\u2016 and \u2015consultancy\u2016 and the three words<\/p>\n
taken together are intended to apply to those services which involve<\/p>\n
a human element. This concludes our discussion on the applicability<\/p>\n
of the principle of noscitur a sociis.\n<\/p>\n
\n
20.          Before concluding we would also like to point out that the<\/p>\n
interconnect\/port access facility is only a facility to use the gateway<\/p>\n
and the network of MTNL\/other companies.               MTNL or other<\/p>\n
companies do not provide any assistance or aid or help to the<\/p>\n
respondents\/assessees in managing, operating, setting up their<\/p>\n
infrastructure     and   networks.       No   doubt,   the   facility   of<\/p>\n
interconnection and port access provided by MTNL\/other companies<\/p>\n
is `technical’ in the sense that it involves sophisticated technology.<\/p>\n
The facility may even be construed as a `service’ in the broader sense<\/p>\n
such as a `communication service’. But, when we are required to<\/p>\n
interpret the expression `technical service’, the individual meaning<\/p>\n
of the words `technical’ and `service’ have to be shed. And, only<\/p>\n
the meaning of the whole expression `technical services’ has to be<\/p>\n
seen.    Moreover, the expression `technical service’ is not to be<\/p>\n
construed in the abstract and general sense but in the narrower sense<\/p>\n
as circumscribed by the expressions `managerial service’ and<\/p>\n
`consultancy service’ as appearing in Explanation 2 to section 9<\/a> (1)<\/p>\n
(vii) of the said Act.      Considered in this light, the expression<\/p>\n
`technical service’ would have reference to only technical service<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                                Page No.20 of 21<\/span>
\n rendered by a human. It would not include any service provided by<\/p>\n
machines or robots.\n<\/p>\n
\n
21.          Thus, it is clear, whether we follow the line of reasoning<\/p>\n
taken in Skycell (supra) or not, the result is the same.           The<\/p>\n
interconnect charges\/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees<\/p>\n
for technical services.      Consequently, both the questions are<\/p>\n
answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assesses.<\/p>\n
             The appeals are dismissed. The parties are left to bear<\/p>\n
their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                        BADAR DURREZ AHMED
\n                                               (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                              RAJIV SHAKHDHER
\n                                                  (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
October 31, 2008
\nJ<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1120\/07& Ors                                             Page No.21 of 21<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008 Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 31.10.2008 + I.T.A. 1120\/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ….Petitioner – Versus – BHARTI CELLULAR LTD …Respondent WITH + I.T.A. 697\/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-259220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-18T16:24:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-18T16:24:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":4532,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-18T16:24:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-18T16:24:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-18T16:24:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2"},"wordCount":4532,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-18T16:24:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-31-october-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharti Cellular Ltd on 31 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259220","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=259220"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259220\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}