PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA CORP.,CANADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 665/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 October 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)25 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the repair and maintenance services did not 'make available' technical knowledge, know-how, or skill to the customers, thus not qualifying as FTS under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Consequently, the income was not taxable in India.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp and its subsidiary Pratt & Whitney Canada (Sea) Pte Ltd, provided repair and maintenance services for aircraft engines. The tax authorities treated the income from these services as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) taxable in India.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the income from repair and maintenance services constituted Fees for Technical Services (FTS) taxable in India, considering the 'make available' clause in the relevant DTAAs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vii),Section 147,Section 148A,Section 144C,Section 195,Section 90(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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 ‘D’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CA, Ms. Aaradhana Chauhan, CA, Shri Rishab Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 06.10.2025

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No. 665/DEL/2025
ITA No. 666/DEL/2025
ITA No. 620/DEL/2025
ITA No. 626/DEL/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

-

The above captioned bunch of 4 separate appeals by two separate

but connected assessees are preferred against the ord

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)(vii)

All 1,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →