ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DIT

305 ITR 394Reported decision2008#10500 most cited

What is ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DIT authority for?

A payment is considered 'fees for technical services' (FTS) if it is charged for services that are rendered in India and are taxable in India. If the services are not taxable in India, then the payee is not liable for deduction of tax at source.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DIT · fees for technical services · taxability in India · Section 195 · Section 9(1)(vii) · TDS

Issues it is cited on

fees for technical servicestax treatysection 195section 19transferpersoncompanyindiabusiness

Judgments citing ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DIT

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2084/DEL/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 195(2)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2083 & 2084/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2014-15 & 2014-15 Airport Authority of India Vs. ITO (International Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Taxation) TDS Safdarjung Airport, Ward-1(1) New Delhi – 110 003 New Delhi. PAN AAACA6412D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate Department by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date of 05.09.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM Two appeals filed by the assessee arise out of two…

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 195(2)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2083 & 2084/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2014-15 & 2014-15 Airport Authority of India Vs. ITO (International Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Taxation) TDS Safdarjung Airport, Ward-1(1) New Delhi – 110 003 New Delhi. PAN AAACA6412D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate Department by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date of 05.09.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM Two appeals filed by the assessee arise out of two…

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…Industries Ltd. v. CIT 332 ITR 276 Bom  Intertek Testing Services India (P) Ltd. in re 307 ITR 418 Page 9 of 13 IT(TP)A No. 165/Bang/2020  Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd v JCIT 111 TTJ 375 Mum.  ICICI Bank v DCIT ss20 SOT 453 Mum.  Anapharm Inc In Re. 305 ITR 394 AAR  Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd 313 ITR 74 AAR 5.4 On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR relied on orders passed by authorities below. 5.5 We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 5.6 We note that the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance by the Ld.AO, for non-deduction of tax at source by the assess…

Microstrategy Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT(Internationa Taxation), Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2686/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judical Member Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9

…ka HC) • Raymond Ltd vs DCIT (Mumbai Tribunal) (86 ITD 791) • Boston Consulting Group (Mumbai Tribunal) (280 ITR 1) • DDIT v Preroy AG (Mumbai Tribunal) (309 SOT 187) • Mark & Spencer Reliance India Pvt. Ltd. (38 taxmann 190) (Mumbai Tribunal) • Anapharm Inc (305 ITR 394) (AAR) • ITO vs Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.(Delhi Tribunal) (44 CCH 314) • Intertek Testing Services India Pvt Ltd (307 ITR 418) (AAR) • Hughes Systique India (P) Ltd. vs DCIT (50 Taxmann.com 25) (Delhi Tribunal) • ACIT v Viceroy Hotels Ltd (60 DTR 1) (Hyderabad Tribunal) 13. Insofar as the taxability of the amount received by the assessee as royalty i…

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 507/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. RajanVora &For Respondent: Mr. Nishant Samaiya &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…se services from Edenred on a regular basis. Further, it is stated that meaning of the term “make available” is explained in the decision in Raymond Limited v. DCIT (86 ITD 791), Intertek Edenred Pte Ltd. Testing Services (307 ITR 418) (AAR), Anapharma Inc (305 ITR 394) (AAR), Sandvik Australia Pty. Ltd. (141 ITD 598) (Pune ITAT), M/s Bharati Axa General Insurance Co Ltd. (supra). Finally, the Ld. counsel explains that referral services are not FTS under the India-Singapore DTAA as held in Cushman and Wakefield (S) Pte Ltd (305 ITR 208) (AAR)., Real Resourcing Ltd. (2010) (322 ITR 558), Knight Frank (India) (P…

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1718/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. RajanVora &For Respondent: Mr. Nishant Samaiya &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…se services from Edenred on a regular basis. Further, it is stated that meaning of the term “make available” is explained in the decision in Raymond Limited v. DCIT (86 ITD 791), Intertek Edenred Pte Ltd. Testing Services (307 ITR 418) (AAR), Anapharma Inc (305 ITR 394) (AAR), Sandvik Australia Pty. Ltd. (141 ITD 598) (Pune ITAT), M/s Bharati Axa General Insurance Co Ltd. (supra). Finally, the Ld. counsel explains that referral services are not FTS under the India-Singapore DTAA as held in Cushman and Wakefield (S) Pte Ltd (305 ITR 208) (AAR)., Real Resourcing Ltd. (2010) (322 ITR 558), Knight Frank (India) (P…

Red Chillies Entertainment P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in terms of our directions contained in the orders passed in the aforesaid appeals

ITA 93/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 192Section 194Section 194JSection 201

…be considered 'made available' when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology as was also held in: • Mc. Kinsey & Co., Inc. (Philippines) v. ADIT 99 ITD 549 (Mumbai) • ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DIT 20 SOT 453 (Mumbai) • Anapharm Inc., In re 305 ITR 394 (AAR) As the payment made to 'VHQ' is not taxable in India, assessee cannot be held to be an Assessee in default. 25. Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and AO and submitted that since payment has been made for the work used in India, the assessee should deduct TDS u/s 194J. 26. We have gone through the facts and…

Red Chillies Entertainment P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (TDS) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in terms of our directions contained in the orders passed in the aforesaid appeals

ITA 92/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 192Section 194Section 194JSection 201

…be considered 'made available' when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology as was also held in: • Mc. Kinsey & Co., Inc. (Philippines) v. ADIT 99 ITD 549 (Mumbai) • ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DIT 20 SOT 453 (Mumbai) • Anapharm Inc., In re 305 ITR 394 (AAR) As the payment made to 'VHQ' is not taxable in India, assessee cannot be held to be an Assessee in default. 25. Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and AO and submitted that since payment has been made for the work used in India, the assessee should deduct TDS u/s 194J. 26. We have gone through the facts and…

Red Chillies Entertaiment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in terms of our directions contained in the orders passed in the aforesaid appeals

ITA 6655/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 192Section 194Section 194JSection 201

…be considered 'made available' when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology as was also held in: • Mc. Kinsey & Co., Inc. (Philippines) v. ADIT 99 ITD 549 (Mumbai) • ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DIT 20 SOT 453 (Mumbai) • Anapharm Inc., In re 305 ITR 394 (AAR) As the payment made to 'VHQ' is not taxable in India, assessee cannot be held to be an Assessee in default. 25. Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and AO and submitted that since payment has been made for the work used in India, the assessee should deduct TDS u/s 194J. 26. We have gone through the facts and…

Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 3, Mumbai

ITA 7878/MUM/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar-Sr.A.R
Section 201Section 201rSection 254(1)Section 6Section 9

…lause as per Article 12(4)(b)of the India-USA DTAA.It relied upon the cases of CESC Ltd.(87ITD653)and Diamond Services International P. Ltd.(304 ITR 201),Worley Parsons Services Pte Ltd.(301 ITR 54),De Beers India Minerals P.Ltd (297 ITR 76-AT) Anapharma Inc.(305 ITR 394)and ICICI Bank Ltd.(20SOT453)and argued that such payment was in the nature of business income and in absence of PE of Liftech such payment could not be taxed in India,that the assessee's contract was not for the purpose of obtaining any know-how but to avail a commercial service pertaining to review of pre- determined designs and construction au…

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DIT (305 ITR 394) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax