Telecom licence fee, spectrum charges and distributor discount treated differently on amortisation, deductibility and TDS issues.

Variable annual licence fee under the 1999 telecom policy was treated as consideration for the right to establish, maintain and operate the telecom business and, following binding Supreme Court authority, was held amortisable under section 35ABB rather than deductible under section 37(1). Spectrum usage charges were distinguished from licence fee and were held to be revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1). A subscriber verification penalty for breach of KYC and licence conditions was held not to fall within Explanation 1 to section 37(1) because it was a commercial levy and not an expenditure for an offence or prohibited purpose. Discount on prepaid coupons to distributors was held not to constitute commission, so section 194H and the consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) did not apply.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the variable licence fee paid under the 1999 telecom policy and the spectrum usage charges were to be treated as capital expenditure amortisable under section 35ABB or as revenue expenditure deductible under section 37(1); (ii) Whether the subscriber verification penalty was hit by the bar in Explanation 1 to section 37(1); (iii) Whether the discount on prepaid coupons given to distributors attracted section 194H and consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

Issue (i): Whether the variable licence fee paid under the 1999 telecom policy and the spectrum usage charges were to be treated as capital expenditure amortisable under section 35ABB or as revenue expenditure deductible under section 37(1).

Analysis: The variable annual licence fee paid under the 1999 policy was held to be part of the consideration for the right to establish, maintain and operate the telecom business and, following the binding ruling of the Supreme Court, could not be bifurcated into capital and revenue components merely because the payment mode changed. It was therefore required to be amortised under section 35ABB. The spectrum usage charges stood on a different footing. They were not the subject matter of the Supreme Court ruling on licence fee, and the Tribunal followed the later decisions recognising such charges as revenue in nature, including the position accepted in the assessee's subsequent assessments and comparable tribunal and High Court rulings.

Conclusion: The variable licence fee was held to be capital in nature and amortisable under section 35ABB, while spectrum usage charges were held to be allowable as revenue expenditure; the issue was partly decided in favour of the Revenue and partly in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the subscriber verification penalty was hit by the bar in Explanation 1 to section 37(1).

Analysis: The penalty was paid for violation of KYC and subscriber verification norms under the licence framework. The Tribunal treated it as a contractual/commercial levy arising from breach of licence conditions and not as an expenditure incurred for an offence or for a purpose prohibited by law. Since no criminal liability or prosecution was shown, Explanation 1 to section 37(1) was not attracted.

Conclusion: The subscriber verification penalty was held to be allowable as a business expenditure and the disallowance was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the discount on prepaid coupons given to distributors attracted section 194H and consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's treatment of the distributor arrangement as one of independent purchase and resale rather than agency. On that basis, the discount allowed to distributors was not commission within the meaning of section 194H, and no obligation to deduct tax at source arose. Consequently, section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The discount on prepaid coupons was held not to attract section 194H, and the corresponding disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only in part, with the licence fee component decided against the assessee, while the spectrum usage charges, subscriber verification penalty, and distributor discount issues were decided in the assessee's favour.

---