COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, NEW DELHI vs. HCL GREAT BRITAIN LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 63 / 2025HC Delhi11 March 20252 pages
For Petitioner: SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court admitted the appeal for hearing on specific questions of law. The court did not decide the merits of the case but framed the legal issues for further adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax appealed against an ITAT ruling concerning HCL Great Britain Ltd. The appeal questioned whether the income was Fee for Technical Services (FTS) taxable under Section 9(1)(vii) and whether the ITAT erred in its findings on revenue sharing and additional evidence.

What were the issues?

The key issues are whether the income constitutes Fee for Technical Services (FTS) taxable in India and the nature of services rendered and revenue sharing between the assessee and its associated entity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~228 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 63/2025 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, NEW DELHI

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Ms. Priya, JSC and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocates

versus

HCL GREAT BRITAIN LTD

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Neeraj Jain and Mr. Aditya Vohra, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

11.03.2025 CM APPL. 14622/2025 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 14621/2025 3. Having regard to the contents of the application, the delay of 236 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The application stands disposed of. ITA 63/2025 5. The appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:- “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) on the Income Tax Act, 1961 for 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 12:44:26

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.

List for hearing on 03.04.2025. 7. Connect with Income Tax Appeal No. 552/2024.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MARCH 11, 2025 ms

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 12:44:26

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 →