GE ENGINE SERVICES LLC,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.- 85/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2023-24] GE Engine Service LLC, Assistant Commissioner of Income First Floor, Unit F9, Hyatt Delhi Tax, Residences, Aerocity, Vs Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi-110037. New Delhi-110002. PAN- AADCG1809R Assessee Revenue

Assessee by Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khemta, Adv. Revenue by Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 01.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 01.04.2026 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Final Assessment Order dated 23.10.2025 (FAO) passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide order dated 26.09.2025 under section 144C (5) of the Act for Assessment Year (AY.) 2023-24.

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . 2. Ground no. 1 of the appeal is reproduced as under : On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. AO’) under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act is bad in law and barred by limitation.

2.1 This ground of appeal was not pressed by the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed 3. Ground no. 2 of the appeal is reproduced as under : 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the assessment ois erroneous and bad in law as it was passed on an incorrect understanding of facts and incorrect interpretation of the provisions of law. In doing so, 2.1 the Ld. AO erred in basing the conclusions upon the open domain enquiry which have no link/applicability to the facts of the case

3.1 The above ground is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication.

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . services of aircraft engines on an offshore basis at its facility located outside India that also entailed supply of spare parts on offshore basis.

4.1 The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y 2023-24 on 31.10.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 78,86,740/- and claimed refund for Rs 14,95,48,890/- The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and Notice u/s 143(2) of IT Act dated 23.06.2024 was issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had received income earned from supply of parts in the nature of offshore supply in the subject AY and the assessee had received the following receipts during the consideration AY: Nature of revenue Customer Amount of Income Name revenue (INR) offered to tax in India out of (2) Air India 10,323,272,054/- Receipts towards Aix Connect 1,022,297,505/- repair and overhaul Private Nil support Limited {formerly

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . known as Receipts towards AirAsia (India) repair and overhaul Private support Limited Fly-By-Wire 17,185,879/- International Pvt Ltd Nil Tata Sia 374,310,533/- Airlines Limited Zest Aviation 12,074,903/- Pvt Ltd Karnavati 14,951,480/- Aviation Mytri Aviation 3,089,874/- Diagnostic work Private Nil Limited

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . M/s 2,288,160/- Government of Nil Gujarat Interest on Income-tax 7,886,740/- Offered to refund tax Total 11,77,73,57,128/-

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . 3.1 the Ld. AO erred in contending that the Appellant is not liable to tax under the laws in USA. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in treating the receipt towards performance of offshore aircraft engine repair and overhaul activity by the Appellant as Fee for Included Services ('FIS') under the India - US DTAA as well as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In doing so, 4.1 the Ld. AO erred in contending that the Appellant has made available its technical expertise to the Indian customers; 4.2 the Ld. AO erred in contending that the Appellant has provided technical training to its Indian customers; 4.3 the Ld. AO erred in contending that the Appellant has transferred technical plan and data to the Indian customers; 4.4 the Ld. AO erred in not appreciating the fact that no services were rendered in India & none of the employees of the Appellant visited India during the year for providing the services; 4.5 the Ld. AO erred in not appreciating the fact that the offshore repair activity involves replacement or refurbishment of parts, sub-parts components, consumables, etc. and no standalone services are rendered to the Indian customers.”

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . repair and overhaul support’ amounting to Rs. 11,76,94,70,388/-. Further the Tribunal the said case held that the assessee being an LLC covered under Article 4 of the India-US DTAA.

9.1 In this regard on identical facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for A.Y 2021-22 in ITA No. 3700/Del/2023, vide order dated 11/03/2026, in assessee’s own case decided the said issues involved in this appeal on both counts i.e. treaty eligibility and taxability of impugned ‘Receipts towards repair and overhaul support’ in favour of the assessee.

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . Further, we also note that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for A.Y 2022-23 in ITA No. 1142/Del/2025, in assessee’s own case vide order dated 15/04/2026 following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for A.Y 2021-22 in ITA No. 3700/Del/2023 decided the said two issues in favour of the assessee. In this regard, the relevant extracts of the order dated 11/03/2026 of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for A.Y 2021-22 in ITA No. 3700/Del/2023 in assessee’s own case is reproduced as under issue wise: A. Regarding the treaty eligibility benefit under the India- USA, DTAA being the assessee an LLC:

“9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on records. The assessee submits that it is a single member LLC formed in the state of Delaware, USA and the sole member of the LLC is General Electric Company, which is a tax resident of the US. Further it submitted that any income earned by the assessee was thus taxed in the hands of its sole member i.e. General Electric Company. A copy of the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) was also attached at Page No 24-25 of the Paper Book. On the perusal of the above certificate, it is seen that it was certified by the US tax authorities that to the best if their knowledge, the above- named Limited Liability Company was a branch, division, or business unit of a U.S. corporation that is a resident of the United States of America for purposes of U.S. taxation. Therefore, in this regard the submission of the assessee that a perusal of the above TRC highlights that the assessee though a fiscally transparent entity is referred to as the taxpayer and it has been allotted a Tax Identification Number. Further, the assessee submits that the US Revenue Department has certified that the Assessee is a business unit of a US tax resident, meaning thereby that the any taxes liable to be paid on the income earned by the assessee will be paid by the U.S. 8

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . corporation and the assessee in the capacity of LLC is liable to taxation is acceptable. In this regard the assessee has placed reliance on the three orders of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of General Motors Company USA Vs ACIT(supra), Wild West Domains, LLC vs ACIT(supra) and Go Daddy.com LLC Vs. DCIT where it is held that to avail the tax benefit under the treaty it was not necessary that the assessee should be paying the actual taxes but what was important that the assessee was liable to pay taxes. In view of the above submissions, the Ld. AR submitted that the interpretation proposed by the Ld. AO is erroneous as the same will render a tax treaty otiose in case of economic double taxation i.e., taxability of the cross-border income in the hands of different taxpayers and requested for allowing the benefit of the India-USA DTAA.

9.1 It is seen that on similar facts, the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wild West Domains, LLC vs ACIT (supra) for AY. 2019-20 by an order dated 29.07.2024 had allowed the appeal of the assessee and had granted the benefit of India-USA Tax Treaty to an LLC which was the assessee in the cited case. The relevant extracts of the said order in Para No. 11-70 are reproduced as under:

“ 11. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Perusal of the final assessment order, we observed that the AO had stated that assessee had furnished TRC for only that part of the year for which it was not an LLC. However, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention towards the paper book at pages 34 and 38, wherein copy of TRC issued by Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia, USA and submitted that assessee was recognized as tax payer for the year 2019 and 2018. We observed from the TRCs issued by the Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia it was certified that the assessee Limited Liability Company (LLC) is a branch, division or business unit of US partnership. It was also certified that the partnership has filed an information return in Form 1065, US partnership return of income and each of the partners listed in the TRC 9

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . i.e. GD Subsidiary Inc. and GoDaddy Inc. are residents of the United States of America for purposes of US taxation. Therefore, in our view these TRCs issued by Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia USA clearly recognizes the assessee Limited Liability Company having two partners are residents of United States of America filing US partnership return of income. Therefore, the observation of the AO that the assessee has furnished a copy of TRC for only part of the year for which it was not an LLC appears to be not correct.

“ It is urged by the learned Attorney General and Shri Salve for the appellants that the phrase 'liable to taxation' is not the same as 'pays tax'. The test of liability for taxation is not to be determined on the basis of an exemption granted in respect of any particular source of income, but by taking into consideration the totality of the provisions of the income-tax law that prevails in either of the Contracting States. Merely because, at a given time, there may be an exemption from income-tax in respect of any particular head of income, it cannot be contended that the taxable entity is not liable to taxation. They urge that upon a proper construction of the provisions of Mauritian Income Tax Act it is clear that the FIIs

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . incorporated under Mauritius laws are liable to taxation; therefore, they are 'residents' in Mauritius within the meaning of the DTAC……. ………We are inclined to agree with the submission of the appellants that, merely because exemption has been granted in respect of taxability of a particular source of income, it cannot be postulated that the entity is not 'liable to tax' as contended by the respondents…… There is substance in the contention of Mr. Salve learned counsel for one of the appellants, that the expression 'resident' is employed in the DTAC as a term of limitation, for otherwise a person who may not be 'liable to tax' in a Contracting State by reason of domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature may also claim the benefit of the DTAC. Since the purpose of the DTAC is to eliminate double taxation, the treaty takes into account only persons who are 'liable to taxation' in the Contracting States. Consequently, the benefits thereunder are not available to persons who are not liable to taxation and the words 'liable to taxation' are intended to act as words of limitation ”………. …………."85. In our view, the contention of the respondents proceeds on the fallacious premise that liability to taxation is the same as payment of tax. Liability to taxation is a legal situation; payment of tax is a fiscal fact. For the purpose of application of article 4 of the DTAC, what is relevant is the legal situation, namely, liability to taxation, and not the fiscal fact of actual payment of tax. If this were not so, the DTAC would not have used the words, "liable to taxation ", but would have used some appropriate words like "pays tax"…………….. ……………..87. In a Manual on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, at paragraph 4B. 05, while commenting on Article 4 of the OECD Double Tax Convention, Philip Baker points out that the phrase 'liable to tax' used in the first sentence of Article 4.1 of the Model

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . Convention has raised a number of issues, and observes: ……… ……"It seems clear that a person does not have to be actually paying tax to be "liable to tax" - otherwise a person who had deductible losses or allowances, which reduced his tax bill to zero would find himself unable to enjoy the benefits of the convention. It also seems clear that a person who would otherwise be subject to comprehensive taxing but who enjoys a specific exemption from tax is nevertheless liable to tax, if the exemption were repealed, or the person no longer qualified for the exemption, the person would be liable to comprehensive taxation………..” (Emphasis Supplied by us)”

“ 16. One more objection of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee, being a fiscally transparent entity having no liability to tax in Mauritius due to exemption in capital gain income under the domestic laws of Mauritius, cannot claim benefits of avoidance of double taxation. In our view, this issue has also been addressed by Hon ’ble Supreme Court in case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra). While dealing with this particular issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the expression “liable to taxation” as used in Article 4 of India-Mauritius DTAA as well as the domestic law of Mauritius and held that merely because tax exemption under certain specified head of income including capitaI gain from sale of shares has been granted under the domestic tax laws of Mauritius, it cannot lead to the conclusion that the entities availing such exemption are not liable to taxation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically rejected Revenue’s

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . contention that avoidance of double taxation can arise only when tax is actually paid in one of the contracting States. Hon’ble Court held that ‘liable to taxation’ and ‘actual payment of tax’ are two different aspects. Thus, keeping in view the ratio laid down by Hon ’ble Supreme Court, as aforesaid, the reasoning of the Assessing Officer that since, the assessee is not liable to tax under Article 4 of the India- Mauritius Treaty, it cannot claim benefit of Treaty provisions, is liable to be rejected. ” (Emphasis Supplied by us)”

“56. Modalities or mechanism of taxation may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as domestic law is a sovereign function and a bilateral tax treaty, or even the need of uniformity in entity classification approach - no matter how desirable someone may consider it to be, does not dictate such modalities of taxation being legislated. The fact of taxation, however, can be decided in an objective and uniform manner. Take, for example, a situation, in which the residence country of partnership does not regard it as a taxable unit and the entire income from partnership is taxed in the hands of the persons constituting such partnership, and some of those partners are not even residents of the tax jurisdiction in which partnership firm is resident. In such a situation, in case partnership firm seeks treaty protection from the other Contracting State, it could possibly be argued that income of the partnership firm is not entirely taxable even in the Contracting State in which partnership firm has fiscal domicile, and, therefore, the income of the partnership was not taxed in the residence State. However, in a situation in which entire income of the partnership firm is taxed in the residence country - whether in its own hands

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . or in the hands of the partners - this objection can hardly be taken. From a country perspective, what really matters is whether the income, in respect of which treaty protection is being sought, is taxed in the treaty partner country or not. That is clearly the underlying principle based on which residence definition is modeled…………. 71. Viewed in the light of the detailed analysis above, in our considered view, it is the fact of taxability of entire income of the person in the residence State, rather than the mode of taxability there, which should govern whether or not the source country should extend treaty entitlement with the Contracting State in which that person has fiscal domicile. In effect thus, even when a partnership firm is taxable in respect of its profits not in its own right but in the hands of the partners, as long as entire income of the partnership firm is taxed in the residence country treaty benefits cannot be declined……….. 75. A view is thus indeed possible that, given the context in which the expression ‘liable to taxation by reasons of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of similar nature’ is employed i.e., in the context of ascertaining fiscal domicile - as evident from the title of article as ‘Fiscal domicile’, it is sufficient that under the assignment or distributive rules of the treaty, the residence State has a right to tax income of the partnership firm - irrespective of the fact the position whether or not such a right is actually exercised by the residence State. The undisputed objective of article 4 is to ascertain fiscal domicile of a person, and the heading of article 4, as we have reproduced earlier in this order, is "Fiscal domicile". In our humble understanding, as long as de facto entire income of the enterprise or the person is subjected to tax in that tax jurisdiction, whether directly or indirectly, the taxability test must be held to have been satisfied. Of course, the other possible approach to such a situation is that as long as the tax jurisdiction has the right to tax the entire income of the person resident there, whether or not such a right is exercised, the test of fiscal domicile should be satisfied. Viewed thus, all that matters is whether that tax jurisdiction has a right to tax or not; the actual levy of tax by the tax jurisdiction cannot govern

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . whether a person has fiscal domicile in that jurisdiction or not………. 79. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we hold that the Assessee was indeed eligible to the benefits of India-UK tax treaty, as long as entire profits of the partnership firm are taxed in UK — whether in the hands of the partnership firm though the taxable income is determined in relation to the personal characteristics of the partners, or in the hands of the partners directly. To that extent, objection taken by the learned Departmental Representative, on the question of admissibility of India-UK tax treaty benefits, is held as maintainable but rejected on merits......”

“12. We have considered rival submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon and perused the material on record. Before we proceed to decide the issue on merit, we must make it clear that learned counsel appearing for the assessee has categorically submitted before us that the assessee is not claiming any benefit under the India-USA Tax Treaty as regards the disputed issue. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel appearing for the assessee, we confine ourselves to examine the issue, as to whether, the amount received by the assessee from registration of domain name amounts to royalty under section 9(l)(vi) of the Act.”

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC .

9.2 Following the same order, the co-ordinate Bench by an order dated 01.10.2025in the case of GoDaddy.com, LLC vs ACIT (Supra) had allowed similar benefits to the assessee and the relevant extract of the said order in Para No. 13 is reproduced as under:

“13. Ld. DR has relied the order of ld. Tax authorities below. After taking into consideration all submissions and the material on record we find that ld. AO has erred in giving a findings that being a LLP the assessee is not eligible for treaty benefits. The law in this regard is quite settled as it is now settled that the term, ‘liability to taxation’ has to be distinguished from actual payment of taxation. ‘Liability to taxation’ indicates the powers of taxing an income though the incidence of taxation and actual payment may be different. The reliance of the ld. counsel on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Wild West Domains, LLC (supra) certainly takes care of the issue wherein relying the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case Linklaters LLP vs. ITO (Int. Taxation) 40 SOT 51 and Herbert Smith Freebills LLP vs. ACIT (TS 822-ITAT-202 (Del Trib.) the coordinate bench has given benefit of DTAA, irrespective of the fact that the assessee in that case was fiscally transparent entity in USA, like the present assessee. Accordingly, ground No.2 is sustained in favour of the appellant.”

9.3 As noted above in para no 9 of this order that the facts are identical to the facts of the aforesaid two cases, in as much as that in the present case,

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . the assessee has been allotted Tax Identification Number and it was certified by the US tax authorities that to the best of their knowledge, the above-named Limited Liability Company was a branch, division, or business unit of a U.S. corporation that is a resident of the United States of America for purposes of U.S. taxation. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan (supra) held as under : In our view, the contention of the respondents proceeds on the fallacious premise that liability to taxation is the same as payment of tax. Liability to taxation is a legal situation; payment of tax is a fiscal fact. For the purpose of application of article 4 of the DTAC, what is relevant is the legal situation, namely, liability to taxation, and not the fiscal fact of actual payment of tax. If this were not so, the DTAC would not have used the words, "liable to taxation ", but would have used some appropriate words like "pays tax"…………….. 9.4 Similarly the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Go Daddy.com LLC vs ACIT (supra) after observing that the law in this regard is quite settled as it is now settled that the term, ‘liability to taxation’ has to be distinguished from actual payment of taxation. ‘Liability to taxation’ indicates the powers of taxing an income though the incidence of taxation and actual payment may be different and had allowed the benefit of the India-USA DTAA to the assessee being an LLP.

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . 9.5 Therefore, in view of the facts has discussed above and relying upon the above quoted orders we hold that the assessee being an LLP is entitled to the benefit of the India-USA DTAA ground no. 3 to 3.1 of the appeal is allowed.”

On the issue of taxability of impugned receipts receipt of Rs. B. 11,76,94,70,388/- in the nature of FTS/FIS income under Article 12(4)(b) the India, USA DTAA as well as under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act: “13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As noted above, the assessee company is incorporated under the laws of the United States of America (‘USA’) 18

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . and the customers of the Assessee are airline companies based in India which use GE engines in their aircrafts. Further, the Assessee carried out overhaul, repair work, supply of spare parts, inspection/ testing activity, on an offshore basis i.e. in its facilities located outside India in respect of GE engines in their aircrafts. -------------XXXXX---------------

13.13 The above findings of the AO have been carefully perused by us but not found to be acceptable. The above findings of the AO at best shows that the engineers/ technicians working for the Indian customers may be getting wiser and learning certain skills in its interaction with the assessee but the question is whether it is on account of making available of the said skills by the assessee or it is individual skill of the person to acquire some related skills as stated by the AO. We also note that in Article 12(4)(b) of the Act India-USA DTAA it mentions to “make available” technical knowledge in other items as mentioned there in, which in our considered view is that the assessee has to “make available” the said technical knowledge with a design and with a conscious efforts and not by implication as the case has been made out by the Assessing Officer in the present case. The engineers/technicians working with the Indian customers will have a knowledge of aeronautical engineering relating to the aeroplanes which includes its engine for which they have been hired by the respective Indian companies for which they were paid. But the issue here is if the Indian customers could get their engines repaired by their inhouse engineering team then why the Indian customers would send the engines to the assessee at the service centres by paying such huge amount towards “Receipts towards repair and overhaul support”. Flying of an aeroplane is an engineering miracle but it has to observe zero error norms of safety. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Delhi vs M/S Lufthansa Cargo India (supra) observed that there are strict guidelines to keep the aircrafts safe and airworthy because international and national domestic regulatory authorities mandate that certification of such component safety is a condition precedent for their airworthiness. Under these circumstances, the airlines were bound by the agreements to send its engines for repair and overhaul to the assessee. 13.14 Upon careful observations of the above findings/observations of the AO we find that the AO has not established that technical knowledge which is being utilized by the assessee for the “receipts towards repair and overhaul support” (for which the assessee has received the sum of Rs 471,64,50,980/-) is transferred to the 19

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . customer to make them self -sufficient/reliant in using the technology and that the customer has derived an enduring benefit and utilized the knowledge or knowhow on its own in future without the aid of the service provider. We do not find that in the present case the technical knowledge, skills, etc remained with the customer receiving the services even if after the particular contract comes to an end. Further, the assessee in its submission before the Ld DRP for AY 2021-22 had stated that in fact, the customers continued to engage with the Applicant for such offshore work in subsequent years on an ongoing basis which has not been contested by the revenue. Thus, we are of the considered view that the requirement of “make available” clause as per the India-USA DTAA are not satisfied in the case of the assessee. We are also of the considered view that the business is not run with a charity motive in this highly competitive business environment both locally and globally and the assessee would not be sharing or make available its technical expertise to the Indian customers to lose its own business or to create a competitor for itself unless the assessee is paid for making available the said technology, which in the present case the revenue has failed to show that any amount for making available the said technology or any amount attributable towards making available of such technology was paid by the Indian customers to the assessee.

13.15 Further, as noted above in the case of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. v. DCIT (supra) and Rockwell Collins Southeast Asia Pte Ltd v. DCIT (supra) had considered India-Canada DTAA and India- Singapore DTAA wherein the requirement of “make available” was required to be satisfied to tax fees for technical services in the source country making the said payments like the similar requirement in Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA DTAA and also on similar facts (as reproduced earlier in this order and the significant finding showing the facts similar to case of the assessee duly highlighted) the co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had held that the receipts on account of repair and maintenance services received by assessee was not liable to be taxed as FTS in the hands of the assessee during the subject year. 13.16 We therefore, in view of the facts as discussed above by us and relying upon the respective orders of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. v. DCIT (supra) and Rockwell Collins Southeast Asia Pte Ltd v. DCIT (supra), we hold that the receipts on account of repair and overhaul services amounting to Rs. 471,64,50,980/- received by assessee was not liable to be taxed as

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . FTS in the hands of the assessee during the subject year and the same is deleted. Grounds no 4 to 4.5 of the appeal are allowed.” 11. As the Revenue could not bring any material on record in order to distinguish the above order of the Tribunal, by following the order of the Tribunal for AY 2021-22 (supra) rendered in assessee’s own case, we hold that the ‘Receipts towards repair and overhaul support’ amounting to Rs. 11,76,94,70,388/- in the year under consideration is not liable to be taxed as FTS/FIS in the hands of the assessee and the same is deleted. Ground No. 4 to 4.5 of the appeal are allowed. 12. Ground No. 5 of the appeal is reproduced as under : “On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest of INR 35,27,61,121 under section 234B of the Act, respectively.”

12.1 This ground is consequential in nature. The AO directed to charge interest as per law while giving effect to this order. Ground no 5 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

“On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest of INR 1,57,02,624 in the computation sheet annexed to the impugned order without providing any basis.”

13.1 The AO directed to verify the above ground of the assessee and

IT(IT)A No.-85/Del/2025 GE Engine Services LLC . take necessary action as par law. Ground no 6 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

“On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act.”

14.1 This ground is premature in nature and hence dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- [VIKAS AWASTHY] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 29.06.2026. Aamir, PS. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,