DCIT(IT)-1(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERECE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 3125/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 November 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee are not taxable as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act or under the India-Singapore DTAA. The services provided were considered a standard facility for advertising, not technical services.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Alibaba Singapore, operates an online platform and sells subscriptions in India through a reseller agreement with Alibaba India. The Assessing Officer treated subscription fees received from Indian subscribers as Fee for Technical Services (FTS). The CIT(A) deleted these additions, relying on previous tribunal and High Court decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether subscription fees received by an e-commerce platform from Indian customers constitute Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under domestic law and the India-Singapore DTAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘I’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT
Hearing: 12/11/2025Pronounced: 18/11/2025

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against separate impugned orders dated 13/02/2025 passed by CIT(A)-5, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) & 143(3) r.w.s. 144C for the A.Yrs. 2014-15, 2015- 16 & 2016-17. 2. The common grounds which has been raised by the Revenue reads as under:- Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd., “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that Infomedia 18 Pvt Ltd. does not constitute a business connection' of the assessee in India under the provisions of se

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vii)

All 1,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →