“fees for technical services”

International TaxSection 9(1)(vii)Section 9(1)(vii)1,408 judgments

HOME CREDIT INTERNATIONAL A.S.,CZECH REPUBLIC vs. ASSISTANTDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3846/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 282

that under Article 12, clause 3(b) is applicable in the present case which reads as under: “3(a)…………….. 3(b) The term “fee for technical services” are used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy ... definition of FTS under Article 12(3)(b) of India -Sweden DTAA, which reads as under: "Article 12(3)(b)- The term 'fees for technical services, means payment of any kind in consideration for rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services including

NAVDEEP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE - 13, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 401/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 68

401/DEL/2021 Navdeep Singh vs DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

GE ENGINE SERVICES LLC,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3700/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)

n4.6 However, the same was not accepted by the AO and the AO treated the amount\nof Rs.471,64,50,980/- @10% as fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the\nincome tax act 1961 as well as per Article 12 (4)(b) of INDIA-USA DTAA ... India USA DTAA.\nSection 9(1)(vii) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference:\n(vii)\nincome by way of fees for technical services payable by-\n(a)\nthe Government; or\n(b)\na person who is a resident, except where the fees are\npayable in respect

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

such\nperson outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any\nincome from any source outside India.\nSection 9(1)(vii) -Fees for Technical Services Income by way of fees for\ntechnical services payable by a Resident, except where the fees are payable\nin respect of services utilized

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 not being income chargeable under the head 'Salaries'. But on the payments, such as interest, royalty, fees for technical services. 5.5.4.3. As per the provisions of Section 5(2)(b) of the Act, the total income of a non-resident also includes all income ... Limited person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India. Section 9(1)(vii) -Fees for Technical Services Income by way of fees for technical services payable by a Resident, except where the fees are payable in respect of services utilized

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Limited\nperson outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any\nincome from any source outside India.\nSection 9(1)(vii) -Fees for Technical Services Income by way of fees for\ntechnical services payable by a Resident, except where the fees are payable\nin respect of services utilized

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOS filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 133/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ansaul Sachar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

considering 25% of total foreign exchange fluctuation gain of Rs. 3,018,797/- as reported in the profit & loss account as fee for technical services. In addition, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs 103,791,582/- being remittance received from the head office for execution of project ... action. At the same time, we observed that he restrict himself to make addition on the forex loss claimed by the assessee as Fees for technical services and also proceeded to add the remittance from its head office as undisclosed income of the assessee. This kind of assessments bring

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT vs. HAYWOOD HOSPITALITY(INDIA) PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 880/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambledeputy Commissioner Of Haywood Hospitality(India) Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Surat 1St Floor, Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd., Near Bharti Park, Athwalines, Surat. [Pan : Aabcj9651 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit(Dr) Respondent By: Shri Hiren R Vepari, Ar Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Hiren R Vepari, AR

Section 250Section 40Section 40a

deducted on the same, even though the expenses are falling within the scope of "fees for Technical Services" and the assessee failed to deduct TDS on the same. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition ... submitted the addition of Rs.64,19,433/- made u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act as the expenses are falling within the scope of “fees for technical services” and failed to deduct TDS on the same. The Ld.DR as relates to ground no.3 submitted the Ld.CIT(A), erred in deleting addition

BOBST BIELEFELD GMBH,GERMANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6030/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

erred in not considering the submission of the Appellant to tax the income of INR 1,26,59,423 under the head "Fees for Technical Services" (FTS) under Article 12 instead of income inadvertently reported under the head of "Profits and Gains from Business or Profession" in the Income ... erred in not considering the submission of the Appellant to tax the income of INR 1,01,85,082 under the head "Fees for Technical Services" (FTS) under Article 12 and income of INR 36,74,155 under the head "Interest Income" under Article 11 of the Treaty instead

BOBST BIELEFELD GMBH,GERMANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6029/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

OWENS CORNING (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT (INT TAX) CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5161/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2023-24 Owens Corning (Singapore) Deputy Commissioner Of Pte Ltd., Income Tax (International Tax), C/O. Owens Corning (India) Vs. Circle-3(2)(2), Pvt. Limited, 6Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Bandra Kurla Complex, Powai, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400076. Pan : Aabco5666L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Bhalla For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 10-07-2025, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, ("Ld.Drp"), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2 “1.0 Re: Treating fabrication charges received as 'fees for technical services': 1.1 The Assessing Officer ('AO')/ Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in taxing the fabrication charges received by the Appellant ... during the year under consideration by treating the same as 'fees for technical services' in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and Singapore ("India-Singapore Tax Treaty"). 1.2 The Appellant

DCIT(IT)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN MADHAVACHARI RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

ITA 3814/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 254Section 9(1)(vii)

nheld that the amount received by DAR Capital Ltd., and Thurles International\nLtd from Gulf Finance House of UAE is not taxable as Fee for Technical Services\nu/s 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act without appreciating that the services have been\nutilized in India and in absence ... consultancy services to GFH and KBHC for the project work\nin India, the money received by these two companies would be taxable\nas fees for technical services and would be liable to tax as such.\n(x) Accordingly, the entire receipt of INR 465 crore was held to be\ntaxable

SUPERHOUSE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

erred in arriving at the finding that the commission on sales paid to foreign subsidiaries constituted Fee for Technical Services ("FTS") on which tax was liable to be deducted at source. 6. BECAUSE, without prejudice to what has been stated above, the Ld. CIT has failed to even consider much ... erred in arriving at the finding that the commission on sales paid to foreign subsidiaries constituted Fee for Technical Services ("FTS") on which tax was liable to be deducted at source. 7) BECAUSE, without prejudice to what has been stated above, the Ld. CIT has failed to even consider much

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 250/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115ASection 250Section 9(1)(vi)

said receipts to be taxable under DTAA. Careful reading of provisions of DTAA between India and Swiss Government provides that royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State. However, such ... royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the laws of that State; but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident of the other Contracting State

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. JINDAL PIPES LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

examination of accounts,\nwhich is completely absent in the present case.\nTherefore, the disallowance made by the AO is\nlegally unsustainable.\nDisallowance of Fees for Technical services from\nPioneer Inspection Services u/s 37(1) of the Act\nGround 2\nof\nAssessee\nAppeal\nDisallow\nance\nof Fees\nTechnical\nservices\nfrom\nPioneer ... certain disallowances made by the AO. The appeals were filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The issues pertained to disallowance of fees for technical services, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, and disallowance of power and fuel expenses.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the disallowance

JINDAL PIPES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3661/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

examination of accounts,\nwhich is completely absent in the present case.\nTherefore, the disallowance made by the AO is\nlegally unsustainable.\nDisallowance of Fees for Technical services from\nPioneer Inspection Services u/s 37(1) of the Act\n30. The ld. AO has made the disallowance ... assessee and the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A). The core issues involve disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for fees for technical services and disallowances under Section 14A. The Revenue's appeal primarily challenges the deletion of disallowance for Power and Fuel Expenses.", "held": "The Tribunal

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI, BKC vs. HSBC BANK PLC, UNITED KINGDOM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4621/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit(It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai Hsbc Bank Plc Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautriya 8 Canada Square, London, Bhavan, G Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Foreign United Kingdom- Mumbai-400051. 999999, United Kingdom. (Pan : Aabch325P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 56, Mumbai Vide Order, Dated 02.04.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ld. Dcit (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai U/S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.02.2018, For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. "Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, For The Issue Of Expenses Of Rs. 3,77,38,994/-, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Relying On Para 16 Of Itat'S Order For A.Y. 2011-12 & Para 8 Of Itat'S Order For A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 As The Orders U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) For A.Y.S 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Never Examined The Issue Of 'Royalty' For The Reimbursement Received From Hsbc Securities & Capital Markets (India) Private Limited (Hsch).”

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

head of reimbursement of expenses of Rs. 12,73,81,469/-received from HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited (HDPI) taxed as fees for technical services (FTS).” 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred to delete ... head of reimbursement of expenses of Rs. 1,80,12,196/- received from HSBC Software Development (India) Private Limited (HSDI) taxed as fees for technical services (FTS).” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a bank incorporated in United Kingdom (UK) and is a tax resident

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

right to use, any intellectual property or other intangible asset. Consequently, the consideration paid does not partake the character of royalty or fees for technical services; rather, it constitutes business income in the hands of VISA/MasterCard. It is further submitted that both VISA and MasterCard operate from Singapore

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 975/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

Operative Bank Ltd. (i) “commission or brokerage” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) of the Explanation to section 194H; (ii) “fees for technical services” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) “professional services” shall

Showing 1–20 of 1,408 · Page 1 of 71

...