Skip to main content

ACIT, Circle 76(1) vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd.

Case No: ITA No.6618/DEL/2017, ITA No.6619/DEL/2017
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench
Date: 9/19/2024

Parties Involved

appellantACIT, Circle 76(1), New Delhi
respondentTata Teleservices Ltd.

Facts Summary

The assessee was held to be in default by the Income Tax Officer, Circle 51(5), New Delhi vide order dated 31.03.2011 passed u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-41, New Delhi (CIT(A)) which was partly allowed. The appeal effect application was filed by the assessee for giving effect to the order of CIT(A). The Assessing Officer (AO) raised TDS liability under section 201/201(1A) of Rs.5,65,93,780/-. The assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 read with section 201/201(1A) for the mistakes apparent from the appeal effect order passed by the AO. The AO passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2016 under section 154 read with section 201/201(1A) of the Act, raising TDS demand of Rs. 5,56,51,140/- along with interest liability under section 220(2) of Rs.2,98,39,239/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), which was partly allowed. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A).

Decision in favour of

Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue

Legal Issues

  • 1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in modifying and issuing clarification to her predecessor's order by not quoting the entire operating part of para 9.1 of the appellate order dated 13.03.2015?
  • 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in issuing clarification to her predecessor's order by not quoting the last line of para 9.1 of the appellate order dated 13.03.2015?
  • 3. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the AO has no authority to verify the payments of Rs. 34.88 Crores even after specific direction in this regard in para 9.1 of the appellate order dated 13.03.2015?
  • 4. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing appeal without holding any irregularity in verification conducted by the AO?
  • 5. Whether the order of the CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated and the order of the JCIT be restored?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

2 precedents cited in this judgement.

Opakhya LogoOpakhya

AI-powered tax-litigation platform. Find precedents using natural language, draft submissions in minutes, and run your entire case repository from a single secure workspace.

© 2025 Opakhya. All rights reserved.

Core Features

Additional Features

  • Smart Comments
  • Export Options
  • Quick Copy
  • Analytics Dashboard
Version 2.0.1Last updated: October 2025
Powered by AI & Machine Learning