{"id":68758,"date":"2010-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-09T04:18:23","modified_gmt":"2018-11-08T22:48:23","slug":"c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.H. Kapadia, K.S. Radhakrishnan<\/div>\n<pre>                               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.6691 OF 2010\n             (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16452 of 2009)\n\nC.I.T., Delhi                                                     ...Appellant(s)\n\n\n                                        Versus\n\n\nM\/s. Bharti Cellular Ltd.                                         ...Respondent(s)\n\n                                         With\nCivil   Appeal   No.6692   of   2010     @ S.L.P.       (C)   No.16453\/2009,\nCivil   Appeal   No.6693   of   2010     @ S.L.P.       (C)   No.22156\/2009,\nCivil   Appeal   No.6694   of   2010     @ S.L.P.       (C)   No.26622\/2009,\nCivil   Appeal   No.6695   of   2010     @ S.L.P.       (C)   No.26623\/2009,\nCivil   Appeal   No.6696   of   2010     @ S.L.P.       (C)   No.13027\/2009,\nCivil   Appeal   No.6697   of   2010     @ S.L.P.       (C)   No.13029\/2009,\nCivil   Appeal   No.6698   of   2010     @ S.L.P.       (C)   No.13030\/2009 and\nCivil   Appeal   No.6699   of   2010     @ S.L.P.       (C)   No.20909\/2009\n\n                                O   R     D    E    R\n\n            Civil Appeal Nos.6696\/2010, 6697\/2010, 6698\/2010 and\n6699\/2010       arising     out     of        S.L.P.       (C)       Nos.13027\/2009,\n13029\/2009,      13030\/2009       and    20909\/2009           are    taken     on   Board\nalong with these cases.\n            Delay condoned.\n            Leave granted.\n            In this batch of cases, the key issue which arises\nfor determination is, whether manual intervention is involved\nin    the   technical     operations          by   which      a     cellular    service\nprovider, like M\/s. Bharti Cellular Limited, is given the\nfacility by BSNL\/MTNL for interconnection?\nFacts<\/pre>\n<p> in the lead case of Bharti Cellular Limited<br \/>\n            Respondent No.1 is a cellular service provider.                            It<br \/>\nhas     Interconnect      Agreement       with      BSNL\/MTNL.           Under       such<br \/>\nagreement,      Respondent      No.1       pays      interconnect\/access\/port<br \/>\n                                                                                &#8230;.2\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                                            &#8211; 2 &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>charges to BSNL\/MTNL.            Bharti Cellular, BSNL, MTNL, Hutchison<br \/>\nare all service providers.                    All are governed by National<br \/>\nStandards of CCS No.7 issued by Telecom Engineering Centre.<br \/>\nUnder the National Standards                  M\/s. Bharti Cellular Limited is<br \/>\nrequired to connect its network with the network of BSNL (the<br \/>\nservice      provider)      and    similar              concomitant      agreement   is<br \/>\nprovided for under which BSNL is required to interconnect its<br \/>\nnetwork with M\/s. Bharti Cellular Limited.\n<\/p>\n<p>          The question basically involved in the lead case is:<br \/>\nwhether TDS was deductible by M\/s. Bharti Cellular Limited<br \/>\nwhen    it    paid      interconnect         charges\/access\/port           charges   to<br \/>\nBSNL?        For that purpose, we are required to examine the<br \/>\nmeaning of        the    words    &#8220;fees       for       technical   services&#8221;      under<br \/>\nSection 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation                                 to<br \/>\nSection 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act&#8217;, for short]<br \/>\nwhich, inter alia, states that &#8220;fees for technical services&#8221;<br \/>\nshall have the same meaning as contained in Explanation 2 to<br \/>\nclause (vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act.                            Right from 1979<br \/>\nvarious judgments of the High Courts and Tribunals have taken<br \/>\nthe view that the words &#8220;technical services&#8221; have got to be<br \/>\nread in the narrower sense by applying the rule of Noscitur a<br \/>\nsociis, particularly, because the words &#8220;technical services&#8221;<br \/>\nin Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 comes in between<br \/>\nthe words &#8220;managerial and consultancy services&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>          The problem which arises in these cases is that there<br \/>\nis no expert evidence from the side of the Department to show<br \/>\nhow human intervention takes place, particularly, during the<br \/>\nprocess when calls take place, let us say, from Delhi to<br \/>\nNainital and vice versa.               If, let us say, BSNL has no network<br \/>\nin     Nainital      whereas      it        has     a    network    in    Delhi,     the<br \/>\nInterconnect Agreement enables M\/s. Bharti Cellular Limited<br \/>\nto   access     the      network       of    BSNL        in   Nainital and the same<br \/>\n                                                                               &#8230;.3\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                                            &#8211; 3 &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>situation can arise vice versa in a given case.                                  During the<br \/>\ntraffic     of     such     calls           whether          there     is     any      manual<br \/>\nintervention,      is     one    of       the    points       which    requires       expert<br \/>\nevidence.     Similarly, on what basis is the &#8220;capacity&#8221; of each<br \/>\nservice     provider       fixed       when          Interconnect          Agreements      are<br \/>\narrived at?       For example, we are informed that each service<br \/>\nprovider is allotted a certain &#8220;capacity&#8221;.                                  On what basis<br \/>\nsuch &#8220;capacity&#8221; is allotted and what happens if a situation<br \/>\narises where a service provider&#8217;s &#8220;allotted capacity&#8221; gets<br \/>\nexhausted    and    it     wants,         on    an     urgent      basis,        &#8220;additional<br \/>\ncapacity&#8221;?       Whether at that stage, any human intervention is<br \/>\ninvolved is required to be examined, which again needs a<br \/>\ntechnical data.           We are only highlighting these facts to<br \/>\nemphasise    that       these    types          of    matters        cannot      be   decided<br \/>\nwithout any technical assistance                      available on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>          There is one more aspect that requires to be gone<br \/>\ninto.     It is the contention of Respondent No.1 herein that<br \/>\nInterconnect       Agreement         between,          let    us     say,     M\/s.    Bharti<br \/>\nCellular     Limited       and       BSNL       in    these     cases       is    based     on<br \/>\nobligations       and     counter         obligations,          which       is    called     a<br \/>\n&#8220;revenue sharing contract&#8221;.                     According to Respondent No.1,<br \/>\nSection 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of<br \/>\n&#8220;revenue sharing contract&#8221;.                  According to Respondent No.1, in<br \/>\nsuch    contracts       there        is     only       sharing        of    revenue        and,<br \/>\ntherefore,       payments       by    revenue          sharing       cannot      constitute<br \/>\n&#8220;fees&#8221; under Section 194J of the Act.                         This submission is not<br \/>\naccepted by the Department.                     We leave it there because this<br \/>\nsubmission has not been examined by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>          In short, the above aspects need reconsideration by<br \/>\nthe Assessing Officer.               We make it clear that the assessee(s)<br \/>\nis not at fault in these cases for the simple reason that the<br \/>\nquestion    of     human    intervention               was    never        raised     by   the<br \/>\nDepartment before the CIT.                 It was not raised even before the<br \/>\n                                                                                      &#8230;.4\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                                            &#8211; 4 &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>Tribunal;        it    is    not    raised       even     in    these          civil       appeals.<br \/>\nHowever,     keeping          in     mind     the        larger       interest         and      the<br \/>\nramification           of    the     issues,       which       is        likely       to     recur,<br \/>\nparticularly,           in     matters       of      contracts             between           Indian<br \/>\nCompanies and           Multinational Corporations, we are of the view<br \/>\nthat the cases herein are required to be remitted to the<br \/>\nAssessing Officer (TDS).\n<\/p>\n<p>           Accordingly, we are directing the Assessing Officer<br \/>\n(TDS) in each of these cases to examine a technical expert<br \/>\nfrom the side of the Department and to decide the matter<br \/>\nwithin a period of four months.                            Such expert(s) will be<br \/>\nexamined (including cross-examined) within a period of four<br \/>\nweeks from the date of                 receipt of the order of this Court.<br \/>\nLiberty     is    also       given    to    Respondent          No.1        to    examine       its<br \/>\nexpert and to adduce any other evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>           Before       concluding,         we     are    directing            CBDT    to     issue<br \/>\ndirections        to    all    its    officers,          that       in     such    cases,       the<br \/>\nDepartment       need       not    proceed        only    by    the       contracts          placed<br \/>\nbefore the officers.                 With the emergence of our country as<br \/>\none   of    the        BRIC       countries        and     with       the        technological<br \/>\nadvancement           matters      such     as      present          one       will    keep      on<br \/>\nrecurring    and        hence      time     has    come     when         Department          should<br \/>\nexamine     technical         experts        so     that       the       matters       could     be<br \/>\ndisposed of expeditiously and further it would enable the<br \/>\nAppellate        Forums,      including           this    Court,          to     decide       legal<br \/>\nissues based on the factual foundation.                              We do not know the<br \/>\nconstraints of the Department but time has come when the<br \/>\nDepartment        should      understand          that     when      the       case        involves<br \/>\nrevenue running into crores, technical evidence would help<br \/>\nthe   Tribunals         and     Courts      to     decide       matters          expeditiously<br \/>\nbased on factual foundation.                      The learned Attorney General,<br \/>\nwho is present in Court, has assured us that our directions<br \/>\nto CBDT would be carried out at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                            &#8230;.5\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                                   &#8211; 5 &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>          The next question which arises in this batch of cases<br \/>\nis whether the Department is entitled to levy interest under<br \/>\nSection    201(1A)    of    the   Act    or     impose    penalty   for    non-<br \/>\ndeduction of TDS.      We are of the view, that in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, it would not be justified for the<br \/>\nfollowing reasons:         Firstly, there is no loss of revenue.            It<br \/>\nis no doubt true that TDS has not been deducted by the payee<br \/>\nbut the tax has been paid by the recipient.                     Secondly, the<br \/>\nquestion involved in the present cases is the moot question<br \/>\nof law, which is yet to be decided.              Basically, we would have<br \/>\nclosed the file because these cases are only with regard to<br \/>\nlevy of interest but we are remitting these cases, as stated<br \/>\nabove, to the Assessing Officer (TDS) only because we are of<br \/>\nthe view that this issue is a live issue and it needs to be<br \/>\nsettled at the earliest.          Once the issue gets settled, the<br \/>\nDepartment    would    be     entitled     to    levy    both    penalty    and<br \/>\ninterest but, as far as the facts and circumstances of the<br \/>\npresent cases are concerned, we are of the view that the<br \/>\ninterest is not justified at this stage.                 Consequently, there<br \/>\nwill be no levy of penal interest prior to the date of fresh<br \/>\nadjudication order.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Accordingly, the civil appeals are disposed of.<br \/>\n          No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..CJI.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                 [S.H. KAPADIA]<\/p>\n<p>                                                 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]<br \/>\nNew Delhi,<br \/>\nAugust 12, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010 Author: . &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. Bench: S.H. Kapadia, K.S. Radhakrishnan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6691 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16452 of 2009) C.I.T., Delhi &#8230;Appellant(s) Versus M\/s. Bharti Cellular Ltd. &#8230;Respondent(s) With Civil Appeal [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-68758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-08T22:48:23+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\\\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-08T22:48:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1234,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010\",\"name\":\"C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\\\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-08T22:48:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\\\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-08T22:48:23+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-08T22:48:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010"},"wordCount":1234,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010","name":"C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-08T22:48:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-delhi-vs-ms-bharti-cellular-ltd-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.I.T.,Delhi vs M\/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd on 12 August, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/68758","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=68758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68758\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}