CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.

383 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2016#451 most cited

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.

203

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,357 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. · section 9(1)(vii) · fees for technical services · FTS · automated services · human interface · section 40(a)(ia) disallowance · make available condition · DTAA · software

Also reported as

67 Taxmann.com 356239 Taxmann 139

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vii)Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 194JSection 144C(3)Section 40(a)(i)Section 37Section 115JB
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 194jsection 9(1)(vii)section 194hsection 40a(ia)fees for technical servicesdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 92ca(1)section 9(1)section 90(2)section 9(1)(vi)section 194tested party

Judgments citing CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.

Ariba Inc, New Delhi vs. ADIT (Intl Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 4583/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 182Section 234BSection 28Section 44DSection 9(1)

…9(1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12 (4) (a) of the India-US DTAA. 35. It is submitted that the services provided by the Assessee are standardized/ common services which cannot be regarded as FTS under the Act. [Refer CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [20I6] 383 ITR 1 (SC) (para 9] 36. Further, for FTS to arise under Article 12(4)(a) of the India-US DTAA, the Assessee has to make available technical know-how, skills or experience etc. to Ariba India. In order to satisfy the requirement of the "make available clause", the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. [2012]…

Ariba Inc, New Delhi vs. ADIT (Intl Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 4582/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 182Section 234BSection 28Section 44DSection 9(1)

…9(1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12 (4) (a) of the India-US DTAA. 35. It is submitted that the services provided by the Assessee are standardized/ common services which cannot be regarded as FTS under the Act. [Refer CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [20I6] 383 ITR 1 (SC) (para 9] 36. Further, for FTS to arise under Article 12(4)(a) of the India-US DTAA, the Assessee has to make available technical know-how, skills or experience etc. to Ariba India. In order to satisfy the requirement of the "make available clause", the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. [2012]…

Bmc Software India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(1), Pune

The appeal is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 270/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh (through virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)

…n, this question is not required to be examined in view of the fact that the decision of this Court in case of Kotak Securities (supra) has been revised by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356/239 Taxman 139/383 ITR 1 (SC). Resultantly, on the merits also, the Revenue would have no ground to succeed.” 10 ITA 270/PUN/2021 BMC Software India A.Y. 2016-17 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we direct the A.O/T.P.O to delete the addition on lease line charges from the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.”…

DCIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Zoomin Online India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 50/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…eign payees were merely providing a „facility‟ and the payment for the same was not liable to tax as Fee for Technical Services in terms of the provisions of the Act as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd: 383 ITR 1 SC. Further, the payments made to foreign payees, being in the nature of business profits, were not liable to tax in India in absence of the foreign payees having a permanent establishment in India. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pinstorm Technologies (P.) Ltd versus ITO: 54 SOT 78 (Mumbai). 4 Assessment Year: 2012-…

Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As J M Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Morgan Stanley India company Addl. CIT, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACJ 4998 F Morgan Stanley India company Addl. CIT, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mu…

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

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2206/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Morgan Stanley India company Addl. CIT, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACJ 4998 F Morgan Stanley India company Addl. CIT, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mu…

DCIT (It) -4(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1759/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 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 i…

DCIT (It) -4 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1758/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 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 i…

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

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1453/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 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 i…

Bmc Software India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2038/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Subhakanta Sahu CIT (through virtual)
Section 144C(5)Section 40

…n, this question is not required to be examined in view of the fact that the decision of this Court in case of Kotak Securities (supra) has been revised by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356/239 Taxman 139/383 ITR 1 (SC). Resultantly, on the merits also, the Revenue would have no ground to succeed.” 4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we direct the A.O/T.P.O to delete the addition on lease line charges from the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. The ld. Counsel thereafter submitted that the o…

Bmc Software India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1938/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Subhakanta Sahu CIT (through virtual)
Section 144C(5)Section 40

…n, this question is not required to be examined in view of the fact that the decision of this Court in case of Kotak Securities (supra) has been revised by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356/239 Taxman 139/383 ITR 1 (SC). Resultantly, on the merits also, the Revenue would have no ground to succeed.” 4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we direct the A.O/T.P.O to delete the addition on lease line charges from the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. The ld. Counsel thereafter submitted that the o…

Bmc Software India Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 476/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Subhakanta Sahu CIT (through virtual)
Section 144C(5)Section 40

…n, this question is not required to be examined in view of the fact that the decision of this Court in case of Kotak Securities (supra) has been revised by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356/239 Taxman 139/383 ITR 1 (SC). Resultantly, on the merits also, the Revenue would have no ground to succeed.” 4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we direct the A.O/T.P.O to delete the addition on lease line charges from the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. The ld. Counsel thereafter submitted that the o…

Bmc Software India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2442/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Subhakanta Sahu CIT (through virtual)
Section 144C(5)Section 40

…n, this question is not required to be examined in view of the fact that the decision of this Court in case of Kotak Securities (supra) has been revised by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356/239 Taxman 139/383 ITR 1 (SC). Resultantly, on the merits also, the Revenue would have no ground to succeed.” 4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we direct the A.O/T.P.O to delete the addition on lease line charges from the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. The ld. Counsel thereafter submitted that the o…

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Wireless Tamilnadu Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2926/DEL/2015[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2010] 193 Taxman 97/[2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC); and the another was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356/239 Taxman 139/383 ITR 1 (SC) and it was submitted that if the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred decisions are considered, the decision of the Tribunal would be unsustainable and consequently, the questions may arise for consideration before this Court in the present appeals. 9. We may record that in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bh…

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Wireless Tamilnadu Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2925/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2010] 193 Taxman 97/[2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC); and the another was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356/239 Taxman 139/383 ITR 1 (SC) and it was submitted that if the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred decisions are considered, the decision of the Tribunal would be unsustainable and consequently, the questions may arise for consideration before this Court in the present appeals. 9. We may record that in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bh…

M/S. Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2356/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2010] 193 Taxman 97/[2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC); and the another was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356/239 Taxman 139/383 ITR 1 (SC) and it was submitted that if the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred decisions are considered, the decision of the Tribunal would be unsustainable and consequently, the questions may arise for consideration before this Court in the present appeals. 9. We may record that in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bh…

M/S. Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2355/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2010] 193 Taxman 97/[2011] 330 ITR 239 (SC); and the another was the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356/239 Taxman 139/383 ITR 1 (SC) and it was submitted that if the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred decisions are considered, the decision of the Tribunal would be unsustainable and consequently, the questions may arise for consideration before this Court in the present appeals. 9. We may record that in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bh…

Gujarat Sickle Anemia Control Society, Gandhinagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1074/AHD/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R. Shah, A.R
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…that if the payment is made for availing Standard Facilities, then, it would not be termed as "Fees for Technical Services". [Page No. 41-42] 1.7.5] The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT-4, Mumbai v. Kotak Securities Ltd. as reported in [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC) had an occasion to elaborately discuss the difference between "facilities" and "services" and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that "Technical services" like "Managerial and Consultancy service" would denote seeking of services to cater to the special needs of the consumer/user as may be felt necessary and the making o…

Gujarat Sickle Anemia Control Society, Gandhinagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1073/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R. Shah, A.R
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…that if the payment is made for availing Standard Facilities, then, it would not be termed as "Fees for Technical Services". [Page No. 41-42] 1.7.5] The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT-4, Mumbai v. Kotak Securities Ltd. as reported in [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC) had an occasion to elaborately discuss the difference between "facilities" and "services" and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that "Technical services" like "Managerial and Consultancy service" would denote seeking of services to cater to the special needs of the consumer/user as may be felt necessary and the making o…

Gujarat Sickle Anemia Control Society, Gandhinagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1072/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R. Shah, A.R
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…that if the payment is made for availing Standard Facilities, then, it would not be termed as "Fees for Technical Services". [Page No. 41-42] 1.7.5] The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT-4, Mumbai v. Kotak Securities Ltd. as reported in [2016] 383 ITR 1 (SC) had an occasion to elaborately discuss the difference between "facilities" and "services" and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that "Technical services" like "Managerial and Consultancy service" would denote seeking of services to cater to the special needs of the consumer/user as may be felt necessary and the making o…