<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (12) TMI 1105 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783565</link>
    <description>Variable licence fee paid to the telecom regulator under the 1999 policy was held to be capital expenditure because it constitutes consideration for acquiring the licence, following the SC ruling that such entry and annual variable licence fees fall within s.35ABB; it must therefore be amortized under s.35ABB and is not allowable as a revenue deduction under s.37, reversing the first appellate authority to that extent. Spectrum usage charges were distinguished as not covered by the SC decision and treated as operational outgoings; they were allowed as revenue expenditure and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed on that component. A subscriber verification/KYC penalty was held not hit by Explanation 1 to s.37(1) and was allowed. Discounts on prepaid instruments were held outside s.194H on the principal-agent tests per SC; disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) was deleted, with consequential direction to allow enhanced s.80-IA deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 18:27:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1105 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783565</link>
      <description>Variable licence fee paid to the telecom regulator under the 1999 policy was held to be capital expenditure because it constitutes consideration for acquiring the licence, following the SC ruling that such entry and annual variable licence fees fall within s.35ABB; it must therefore be amortized under s.35ABB and is not allowable as a revenue deduction under s.37, reversing the first appellate authority to that extent. Spectrum usage charges were distinguished as not covered by the SC decision and treated as operational outgoings; they were allowed as revenue expenditure and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed on that component. A subscriber verification/KYC penalty was held not hit by Explanation 1 to s.37(1) and was allowed. Discounts on prepaid instruments were held outside s.194H on the principal-agent tests per SC; disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) was deleted, with consequential direction to allow enhanced s.80-IA deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>