M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 988/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-1712 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the payments were primarily for subscription services and not 'fees for technical services' as they did not 'make available' technology. It also found that the DTAA was applicable upon submission of the tax residency certificate, and Section 206AA was not applicable. The assessee was also held entitled to interest on the refund of TDS.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Infosys BPO Ltd., made payments to a non-resident, Docusign, for e-signature/digital signature subscriptions and related training/support. The assessee claimed these payments were not taxable in India and thus not subject to TDS. The CIT(Appeals) disagreed, holding the payments were for technical services and not covered by the DTAA due to lack of a tax residency certificate.

What were the issues?

Whether payments for e-signature subscriptions constitute fees for technical services not covered by DTAA, and if Section 206AA applies in the absence of a PAN and with DTAA benefits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vii),Section 195,Section 195A,Section 206AA,Section 244A,Section 90

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N V VASUDEVAN & Ms. PADMAVATHY S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
For Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Hearing: 28.04.2022Pronounced: 17.05.2022

Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is at the instance of assessee directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-12, Bengaluru dated 14.09.2015 for the assessment year 2016-17 on the following grounds:- “1.0 Exception to section 9(l)(vi)(b) / 9(l)(vii)(b) not examined by CIT(A)

1.

1 The learned CIT(A) 12, Bangalore has erred in not appreciating that the payments to non residents were in respect of right, property or information used or services utilized in a business or profession carried on by the appellant outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income fr

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 9(1)(vii)

All 1,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →