Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against an order from the CIT(A) which allowed the Assessee's appeal against the Assessing Officer's assessment order for AY 2020-21. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowances related to payments made to foreign entities.
Held
The Tribunal is considering the Revenue's appeal regarding disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for payments made to foreign entities, specifically concerning whether these payments constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Fees for Included Services (FIS) taxable in India under Section 9(1)(vii) or applicable DTAA provisions, and if TDS under Section 195 was required. The appeal was filed late.
Key Issues
Whether services rendered by foreign entities to the Indian assessee were taxable as FTS/FIS in India, necessitating TDS, and if the CIT(A) correctly deleted such disallowances.
Sections Cited
40(a)(i), 9(1)(vii), 195
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT
ITA 2673/Bangalore/2025 was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru, against M/s. Alten Global Technologies Private Limited (Assessee) for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The Appeal challenges the order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 02.07.2025, which allowed the Assessee's Appeal against the Assessment Order from the Assessing Officer.
The Ld. Assessing Officer is aggrieved and has raised the following grounds:
i. Whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) concerning payments made to Accord North America LLC, USA, by incorrectly Page 2 of 4 classifying the services as managerial rather than taxable as FTS/FIS under Section 9(1)(vii) or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA, without duly considering that the services were technical or consultancy in nature and taxable in India, thereby necessitating TDS under section 195. ii. Whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of payments made to Farnborough International Ltd., UK, by concluding, incorrectly, that exhibition/stall charges do not constitute consultancy or managerial services, while disregarding the applicability of section 9(1)(vii) and the resulting TDS obligation. iii. Whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance towards testing services paid to Accord Technology LLC, USA, by misapplying the "make available" test under Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA and failing to consider that these services constituted technical services taxable u/s. 9(1)(vii). iv. Whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowances relating to payroll, tax consultation, work permit, and visa-related services for the assessee's branches in Germany and the UK, by incorrectly applying section 9(1)(vii)(b) and relevant DTAA provisions, without recognizing that such services pertain to the business of the Indian entity and are taxable in India, thus attracting TDS u/s. 195.
The registry notes this Appeal is 52 days late; the Appellate Order was received by the Assessing Officer on 02.07.2025, but the Appeal was filed on 21.11.2025.
The application for condonation of delay submitted by the Ld. Assessing Officer is as under: -
“To, The Assistant Registrar, No. 51, Behind Jal Bhavan 1 st Cross 4th T' Block Tilak Nagar Bangalore 560041
Sir/Madam, Sub: Date:21.11.2025 Request for seeking condonation of delay in filing of Appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of ALTEN GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED (PAN: AAOCA4054D) for the AY 2020-21 against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)- Reg *******
The condonation of delay may kindly be granted for filing of Appeals before the Hon ble ITAT in the case of ALTEN GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED (PAN: AAOCA4054D) for the AY 2020-21 against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078123551(1)) dated 02/07/2025 for the unintentional and unavoidable reasons mentioned here under:
Due to pressing time barring matters and other miscellaneous works, the filing of appeal is delayed by 82 days.
As such, under the circumstances, I humbly pray for the condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT in the sąid case for the assessment year 2020-21. Yours faithfully, Pela (Pakkiresh Badami, IRS1/5 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)(1), Bengaluru
Copy to: 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1(1), Bengaluru.”
The senior departmental representative stated that the delay was due to sufficient cause and requested it be condoned.
No representative appeared on behalf of the Assessee; consequently, the Appeal regarding the condonation of delay by the Ld. Assessing Officer has been adjudicated based on the information available in the record.
Page 4 of 4 7. We have thoroughly reviewed the submissions presented by the senior departmental representative, as well as examined the application for condonation of delay submitted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Upon analysis, we observe that the Ld. Assessing Officer has not provided adequate justification for the late filing of the Appeal, and the precise duration of the delay is also inaccurately stated. The explanation offered cites pressing deadlines and miscellaneous tasks; however, these responsibilities are inherent to the role of the SSC officer. Accordingly, we find no sufficient grounds to condone the delay incurred in the filing of the Appeal.
The appeal filed by the Ld. Assessing Officer has been dismissed due to the failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing. Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07th April, 2026.