OUTSYSTEMS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(2) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, being signed manually in an 'E-Proceedings' case, suffers from an incurable defect and is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the software license fees and services do not qualify as FTS.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment order was signed manually despite the assessment being conducted through 'E-Proceedings'. The assessee also argued that software license fees and services should not be treated as 'Fee for Technical Services' (FTS) as per the India-Singapore DTAA.
What were the issues?
Whether an assessment order signed manually in an 'E-Proceedings' case is valid, and whether software license fees constitute 'Fee for Technical Services' under the DTAA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT914 citing432 ITR 471 · 2021 · SC · Read judgment
- Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad163 citing8 SCC 266 · 1999 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”, DELHI
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 10.01.2025, for Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The assessee in appeal has raised as many as 13 grounds. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the ou
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 144C(13)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026