BOMBARDIER INC.,QUEBEC, CANADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1022/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 December 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)13 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee did not satisfy the 'make available' clause of the India-Canada DTAA. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable in India as FTS under the treaty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bombardier Inc., a Canadian company, provided maintenance, repair, and overhaul services to SpiceJet under a 'Smart Parts Q400 Agreement'. The revenue authorities treated these receipts as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) taxable under domestic law and the India-Canada DTAA, citing the 'make available' clause.

What were the issues?

Whether the receipts from maintenance, repair, and overhaul services qualify as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Indian domestic law and the India-Canada DTAA, specifically concerning the 'make available' clause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144C(13),Section 144C(5),Section 9(1)(vii),Section 90(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)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, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAs, Shri Varun Jain, CA, Shri Mohit Agarwal, CA, Ms. Amulya K. CA
For Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Hearing: 15/09/2025Pronounced: 10/12/2025

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

1.

The Assessee Bombardier Inc (hereinafter referred to as „assessee) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „the Act‟) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-1, New Delhi dated 24.12.2024 u/s 144C(5).

2.

The Ground No. 1.1 raised by the Assessee is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.

3.

The Ground Nos. 1.2. and 1.3 raised by the Assessee are challenging the validity of assumption of juri iction for reopening of assessment. No Bombardier Inc

argume

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →