Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 31 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2024-02-28 partly_allowed

(NOW BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED) vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

Bench: 2 — Sanjiv Khanna, S.V.N. Bhatti

In Brief

This judgment determines whether cellular mobile telephone service providers must deduct income tax at source under Section 194-H on amounts paid as discounts to franchisees/distributors for prepaid services. The Supreme Court held that Section 194-H applies only when a legal principal-agent relationship exists. Here, franchisees/distributors are independent contractors earning profit from reselling prepaid products to retailers and customers, not agents receiving commission from the telecom companies. Since the telecom operators neither directly pay nor credit income to franchisees/distributors—the income arises from the franchisees'/distributors' own transactions—Section 194-H does not apply. The Court allowed appeals by telecom companies and dismissed Revenue's appeals.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Income Tax Tax at Source Principal-Agent Relationship Franchise Agreements Telecommunications Commercial Law

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login