MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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