DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2) BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. U L INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the issue of whether testing charges constituted FTS or royalty required further examination by the Assessing Officer (AO). Similarly, the taxability of management fees was restored to the AO for fresh consideration, particularly regarding the plea of reimbursement of global costs. The revenue's appeal concerning software payments was dismissed on grounds of consistency.
What were the facts?
The appeals concerned the taxability of testing charges, management fees, and software payments made by Indian entities to their foreign group entities. The revenue authorities treated these payments as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or royalty, requiring withholding tax.
What were the issues?
Whether payments for testing and management services qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under tax treaties, and whether software payments constitute royalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
UL LLC, US UL India Private Limited, Bangalore Underwriters Laboratories Inc., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13
UL LLC 333, Pfingsten Road, Northbook, ACIT (International Taxation) United States of America Circle-2(2) PAN NO : AABCU9700F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2012-13 Circle-2(2) Bengaluru 560 066 Bangalore Karnataka
PAN NO : AAACU2468F APPELLANT RESPONDENT UL LLC, US UL India Private Limited, Bangalore Underwriters Laboratories Inc., Bangalore Assessment Year: 2012-13
UL India Private Limited DCIT (Internatio
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.
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 195
- Subramanian Aravind, Tuticorin vs Ward 1, TuticorinITA 297/CHNY/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Gmp Technical Solutions Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiITA 6155/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- M/S. Sarjak Container Lines Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), MumbaiITA 1791/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Universal Tractor Holding Llc, Usa vs DCIT, International Taxation Circle…ITA 2216/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Buttercup Publishing Private Limited, Delhi vs ITO Int Tax. 1(1)(2), DelhiITITA 19/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026