COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, NEW DELHI vs. HCL GREAT BRITAIN LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court admitted the appeal on two questions of law. These questions pertain to whether the income is FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) and if it's a case of revenue sharing.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2012-13. The appeal raised questions about whether the assessee's income constituted Fee for Technical Services (FTS) and if the ITAT erred in holding it as revenue sharing between the assessee and another entity.
What were the issues?
The key issues are the classification of the assessee's income as Fee for Technical Services and the nature of the service arrangement as revenue sharing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 65/2025 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, NEW DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr Sunil Aggarwal, SSC, Mr Shivansh B Pandya, Mr Viplav Acharya, JSCs and Mr Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate. versus HCL GREAT BRITAIN LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr Neeraj Jain, Mr Aditya Vohra and Mr Shasvat Dhamija, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 17.03.2025 CM APPL. 15299/2025(condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 226 days in filing the captioned appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 15300/2025(Exemption) 3. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application stands disposed of. ITA 65/2025 5. The learned counsel for the parties state that connected appeal being ITA No.552/2024 captioned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-2, New Delhi v. HCL Singapore Pte. Ltd. involving similar issues in respect prior assessment year has already been admitted vide order dated 13.11.2024 on the following questions of law: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:06:38
“5. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) impugning a common order dated 20.12.2023 passed in ITA No.537/Del/2021 in respect of assessment year (AY) 2012-13. The Revenue has projected the following questions for consideration of this court: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred by not appreciating that the income of the Respondent-assessee is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services/Fee chargeable to tax under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Included Services (FTS/FIS) rendered by it to HCLT for the business of HCLT carried on by HCLT in India for a client, which in this case, is located outside India? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in holding that both HCLT and the Respondent-assessee are jointly rendering services and therefore, it is a case of revenue sharing between HCLT and the Respondent- assessee qua the foreign customers of HCLT? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned judgment is perverse to the extent that additional evidence filed on behalf of the Appellant has neither been admitted nor rejected?” 6. They submit that except question no.3, other questions as raised in the present appeals are common. 7. In view of the above the present appeal is admitted on the following two questions: - This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:06:38
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred by not appreciating that the income of the Respondent-assessee is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services/Fee chargeable to tax under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Included Services (FTS/FIS) rendered by it to HCLT for the business of HCLT carried on by HCLT in India for a client, which in this case, is located outside India? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in holding that both HCLT and the Respondent-assessee are jointly rendering services and therefore, it is a case of revenue sharing between HCLT and the Respondent assessee qua the foreign customers of HCLT? 8. List for hearing along with ITA No.552/2024 on 03.04.2025. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MARCH 17, 2025 M Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:06:38
More judgments on Section 9(1)(vii)
- Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V., Netherlands vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New…ITA 1948/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv., Netherlands vs ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Int. Tax., New DelhiITA 1697/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv., Netherlands vs ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Int. Tax., New DelhiITA 1696/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1116/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8… vs Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., PuneITA 2150/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026