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

ITA 3127/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 November 2025AY 2016-1712 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed grounds 1 and 2 as infructuous, noting that the agreement with Infomedia 18 Pvt. Ltd. had been terminated prior to the relevant assessment years, and the Revenue conceded these grounds did not arise from the impugned orders. The core issue for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 concerned whether subscription fees received from Indian subscribers via Alibaba India constituted Fee for Technical Services (FTS). The Tribunal, referencing its own prior decisions for AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12 and the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in the assessee's case for AY 2011-12, held that the services provided by the assessee constituted a standard facility made available to the public at large, akin to a digital Yellow Pages, and did not involve rendering of technical, managerial, or consultancy services as defined in Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 of the Act. The Tribunal found no evidence of constant human endeavor or intervention, nor the making available of technical knowledge or know-how. Therefore, the subscription fees were not taxable as FTS under the Act or the India-Singapore DTAA. The Revenue's grounds were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (DCIT) appealed against orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 to 2016-17. The assessee, Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd., operates a global online platform. For these AYs, it used a reseller model with Alibaba.com India E-Commerce Private Limited (Alibaba India). Indian subscribers contracted with Alibaba India for subscription facilities to list products on the platform. Alibaba India purchased these facilities from Alibaba Singapore and remitted subscription fees. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these receipts as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, relying on previous Tribunal and High Court decisions in the assessee's own cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that Infomedia 18 Pvt Ltd. does not constitute a 'business connection' of the assessee in India under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making the income taxable in India as business income? (Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred. Assessee's contention: Not recorded. Tribunal's observation: This ground was dismissed as infructuous as the agreement with Infomedia 18 Pvt. Ltd. was terminated prior to the relevant assessment years). 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that Infomedia 18 Pvt Ltd. does not constitute a 'permanent establishment' of the assessee in India under Article 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA, making the income taxable in India as business profit under Article 7 thereof? (Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred. Assessee's contention: Not recorded. Tribunal's observation: This ground was dismissed as infructuous). 3. Without prejudice, whether, on the facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that payments made by Indian Suppliers to the assessee are not taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act? (Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred. Assessee's contention: Not recorded. Tribunal's observation: The issue is whether subscription receipts are FTS). 4. Without prejudice, whether, on the facts and in law, the India-Singapore DTAA is applicable and whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that payments made by Indian Suppliers to the assessee are not taxable in India as FTS under Article 12 of the DTAA? (Revenue's contention: CIT(A) erred. Assessee's contention: Not recorded. Tribunal's observation: The issue is whether subscription receipts are FTS under the DTAA).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(i),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:- ITA No.3215/Mum/2025 to 3217/Mum/2025 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 u

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)(i)

All 479 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →