At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules License Fees in Telecom Sector as Capital Expenditure; Overturns High Court's Revenue-Capital Dichotomy"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has overturned the High Court's decision on the classification of license fees in the telecommunications sector. The apex court categorically stated that both entry fees and annual variable license fees paid by telecom operators under the 1999 policy must be treated as capital expenditure. This ruling significantly impacts the financial accounting practices in the telecom industry.

The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the verdict after meticulous examination of the intricate aspects of the telecom policies and their financial implications. The Court observed, "The payment of entry fee and annual variable license fee is capital in nature and may be amortised in accordance with Section 35ABB of the Act."

This judgment effectively sets aside the previous ruling of the Delhi High Court, which had bifurcated the license fees into capital expenditure up to 31 July 1999 and revenue expenditure thereafter. The Supreme Court's decision brings clarity to the contentious issue that has long been a subject of debate in legal and financial circles in the telecom sector.

The Court's reasoning hinged on the understanding that the nature of the license fee payments, integral to the existence of the license and the telecom business itself, cannot be altered merely due to changes in payment methodology or periodicity. "The nomenclature and the manner of payment is irrelevant. The payment post 31 July, 1999 is a continuation of the payment pre 31 July, 1999 albeit in an altered format which does not take away the essence of the payment," the Court emphasized.

This ruling has significant implications for the telecom industry, impacting how telecom companies will account for their license fee payments. It is a departure from the practice of treating these fees as revenue expenses, which has implications for the balance sheets and profit & loss statements of telecom companies.

The verdict is seen as a crucial development, bringing an end to the long-standing ambiguity over the treatment of license fees in the telecom sector and setting a precedent for future financial and legal interpretations in similar matters.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2023

C.I.T., DELHI VS BHARTI HEXACOM LTD.

Latest Legal News