What is CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. authority for?

Fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) can include payments for fully automated services even without direct human interface, as modern technological developments blur the specific human element in such processes.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.?

203 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (383 ITR 1), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 9(1)(vii), Section 143(3), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 194J, Section 144C(3), Section 40(a)(i).

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (383 ITR 1)

ACIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1235/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…th sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the assessment year 2005–06 cited supra, following the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd, [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC), held that these charges are merely the recovery of the cost of infrastructure support and therefore, neither it falls under section 194J or section 194C of the Act. The relevant findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision are as under: “039. Ground no.5 is with respect to the disallowance of transaction charges…

Morgan Stanley India Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1018/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…th sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the assessment year 2005–06 cited supra, following the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd, [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC), held that these charges are merely the recovery of the cost of infrastructure support and therefore, neither it falls under section 194J or section 194C of the Act. The relevant findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision are as under: “039. Ground no.5 is with respect to the disallowance of transaction charges…

Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 831/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…th sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the assessment year 2005–06 cited supra, following the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd, [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC), held that these charges are merely the recovery of the cost of infrastructure support and therefore, neither it falls under section 194J or section 194C of the Act. The relevant findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision are as under: “039. Ground no.5 is with respect to the disallowance of transaction charges…

Morgan Stanley India Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7675/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…th sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the assessment year 2005–06 cited supra, following the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd, [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC), held that these charges are merely the recovery of the cost of infrastructure support and therefore, neither it falls under section 194J or section 194C of the Act. The relevant findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision are as under: “039. Ground no.5 is with respect to the disallowance of transaction charges…

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “B” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member M/s. Bank of Baroda vs. Addl. CIT, LTU, (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) BMTC Building 7th Floor, Central Accounts 6th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 PAN – AAACVO3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1) vs. M/s. Bank of Baroda Room No. 561, 5th Floor (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 PAN – AAACVO3787 (Appellant) (…

M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “B” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member M/s. Bank of Baroda vs. Addl. CIT, LTU, (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) BMTC Building 7th Floor, Central Accounts 6th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 PAN – AAACVO3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1) vs. M/s. Bank of Baroda Room No. 561, 5th Floor (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 PAN – AAACVO3787 (Appellant) (…

Jefferies Llc, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5674/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejefferies Llc V. Dcit (It)-3(1)(1) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp Room No. 1605, 16Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaccj8881D (Appellant) (Respondent) Jefferies International Limited V. Dcit (It)-3(1)(1) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp Room No. 1605, 16Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aabcj7041C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(iva)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9

…ein it is held that the charges paid for availing a standard facility cannot be regarded as fees for technical services as there is no human intervention which is sine qua non for taxability under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. a. Kotak Securities Ltd. vs CIT (383 ITR 1) (SC) (Para 8 and 9) b. Elsevier Information Systems GMBH vs. DCIT (106 taxmann.com 401) (Mum.) (Para 17) c. Kitara Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 130/M/2014) (Para 10) 12. It is further submitted that the standard facility provided by the third parties do not make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes wit…

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

…see’s own case, nothing adduce afresh by the Revenue, which can prompt us to take any deviation from the earlier position. This view of ITAT and Hon’ble Bombay High Court further confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court (in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC.)) once for all and declared that such type of payments are not liable to TDS at all. In the light of above ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. The 4th Ground of appeal pertains to disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. This 19. issue also dealt with by the coordinate bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y.s 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2…

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4459/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

…see’s own case, nothing adduce afresh by the Revenue, which can prompt us to take any deviation from the earlier position. This view of ITAT and Hon’ble Bombay High Court further confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court (in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC.)) once for all and declared that such type of payments are not liable to TDS at all. In the light of above ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. The 4th Ground of appeal pertains to disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. This 19. issue also dealt with by the coordinate bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y.s 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2…

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1661/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

…see’s own case, nothing adduce afresh by the Revenue, which can prompt us to take any deviation from the earlier position. This view of ITAT and Hon’ble Bombay High Court further confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court (in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC.)) once for all and declared that such type of payments are not liable to TDS at all. In the light of above ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. The 4th Ground of appeal pertains to disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. This 19. issue also dealt with by the coordinate bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y.s 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2…

DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Personiv Contact Centres India Pvt Ltd ( Formely Known As John Keels Bpo Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7295/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ended that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by a series of orders as under :- (i) ITA No. 3328 to 3332/D/2015 Assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12 M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. ITO (ii) ITA No. 1417/2018 (Del) CIT v. Tata Teleservices Ltd. (iii) 383 ITR 1 ( SC) CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (iv) 290 CTR 436 (Kar) CIT v. Vodafone South Ltd. (v) 194 ITD 253 (Del) Autoliv ASP Inc. v. DCIT (vi) 251 ITR 53 (Mad) Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT (vii) 319 ITR 139 (Del) CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (viii) 392 ITR 186 (SC) DIT (International Taxation) v. AP. Moller Maersk A/S (ix) 117 TTJ 456 (Del) Millenn…

Itp Publishing India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4407/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Itp Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. Norton Plaza, 3Rd Floor, 898, Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Pan: Aabci8454Q ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-12(2)(2), Room No. 109, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dharan Gandhi, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s ITP Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. Norton Plaza, 3rd Floor, 898, Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. PAN: AABCI8454Q ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT-12(2)(2), Room No. 109, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Dharan Gandhi, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 30/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 13/01/2023 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the ord…

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1526/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalrenaissance Services Bv, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 Pan: Aaecr4995E ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Paras Savla/Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…observed that consideration received by the assessee for providing access to reservation system could not be brought to tax as FTS in the hands of the assessee We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC) had in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case before it had observed that services made available by Bombay Stock Exchange [BSE Online Trading (BOLT) System] for which transaction charges were paid by members of BSE were for common services that every member of Stock Exchange was necessarily required to avail of to carry out trading in…

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

…th sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06 cited supra, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd, [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC), held that these charges are merely the recovery of the cost of infrastructure support and therefore, neither it falls under section 194J or section 194C of the Act. The relevant findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision are as under: “039. Ground no.5 is with respect to the disallowance of transaction charges…