DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE GMBH, DEHRADUN

ITA 250/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 February 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It ruled that the tax rate under the DTAA, including surcharge and cess, cannot exceed 10% of the gross amount. Furthermore, receipts from software sales were considered business profits not taxable in India due to the absence of a PE, following Supreme Court precedent.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) treated IP charges and software sale receipts as 'Royalty' taxable under Section 115A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended these receipts were either royalty under the India-Swiss DTAA with a lower tax rate or business profits not taxable in India due to the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE). The CIT(A) deleted the additions, holding in favor of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether IP charges and software sale receipts constitute 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act or the DTAA, and whether surcharge and cess are leviable over the treaty's prescribed tax rate. The second issue is whether software sale receipts are taxable in India in the absence of a PE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vi),Section 115A,Section 9(1)(vii),Section 195

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 “DB”NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, CA &Shri Vishal Mishra, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.02.2026

PERSANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 16.09.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)- Noida-2. In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have held the receipts on account of IP Charges received from Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. amounting to Rs.77,66,43,479/- to be in the nature of “Royalty” u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act, which has been held to be taxable u/s 115A of the Act. Notably the assessee had claimed

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)(vi)

All 1,705 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →