TEMENOS HEADQUARTERS SA,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, holding that annual maintenance service fees are an integral part of software license sales and not taxable as FTS. The Tribunal concluded that the amount received is not taxable in India as it cannot be treated as 'Fees for Included Services' under Article 12(4) of the DTAA, and directed the AO to delete the addition. The related stay petition was dismissed as infructuous.
What were the facts?
M/s. Temenos Headquarters SA, a Swiss company, received Rs. 11,11,70,515/- as annual recurring license fees for banking software, which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS) under the Income Tax Act and Article 12 of the India-Switzerland DTAA, taxing it at 10%. The assessee challenged this, arguing that these charges are an integral part of software license sales and not FTS. The DRP upheld the AO's draft assessment order.
What were the issues?
Whether annual software maintenance charges received by a non-resident company are taxable as 'Fees for Technical Services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Article 12 of the India-Switzerland DTAA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 144C(1),Section 144C(5),Section 144C(13),Section 9(1)(vii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle 2(2), Chennai dated 13.01.2025 and pertains to assessment
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 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026