<?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 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.</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 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.</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>