LINKLATERS LLP,LONDON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE (3)(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1222/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 November 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)18 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal, following its consistent decisions in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years, ruled that the assessee is entitled to India-UK DTAA benefits. It held that the income does not constitute Fees for Technical Services under Article 13 of the DTAA, and no Permanent Establishment exists in India as the period of stay of employees (4 days) was below the 90-day threshold of Article 5(2)(k). Furthermore, Article 15 (independent personal services) is not applicable as the assessee is not an individual, leading to the conclusion that the income is not taxable in India.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Linklaters LLP, a UK-based limited liability partnership providing legal services, filed a nil return for AY 2022-23. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) made additions to income, treating receipts from Indian clients as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and denying India-UK DTAA benefits and the non-existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE). The DRP's decision was based on directions from previous assessment years, which are currently under appeal before the Bombay High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Entitlement to claim benefits under India-UK Tax Treaty. 2. Taxability of income as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under India-UK Tax Treaty. 3. Non-existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. 4. Taxability of income under Article 15 of India-UK Tax Treaty (Independent Personal Services).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C(5),Section 2(17),Section 9(1)(i),Section 9(1)(vii),Section 9(1)(vii)(c),Section 115A,Section 234B,Section 270A,Section 90(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 14.08.2025Pronounced: 11.11.2025

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the assessment order passed under the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5)/2024-25/1070782259(1), dated 30.11.2024, u/s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), for Assessment Year 2022-23. 2 Linklaters LLP AY 2022-23

2.

Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

1.

The learned Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Panel) erred in relying on its finding for the AY 2016 17. 2. The l

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 144C(5)

All 865 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →