“fees for technical services”

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

The decision most relied on for fees for technical services is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on fees for technical services

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT

432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court

914

citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.

346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court

371

citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY

358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court

276

citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.

39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court

269

citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court

259

citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT

251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court

253

citing judgments

Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court

243

citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

ONGC v. CIT

376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court

241

citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

Judgments citing fees for technical services

Keller Asiapacific Limited, Singapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation

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

ITA 3540/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.3540/दिल्ली/2023 (नि.व. 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

appeal. The only ground assailed by the assessee is ground no 4, relating to taxability of management fees as Fee for Technical Services (FTS). 2. 1. Narrating facts of the case, he submitted that the assessee was incorporated in Singapore and is a tax resident of Singapore. The assessee ... appeal, alternate contention of the assessee is, that, if the payment received in lieu of services is held to be fee for technical services, the same should be taxed at flat rate of 10%, as per India-Singapore DTAA without levy of surcharge and cess. In support of his submissions

Metso Oyj, Finland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 616/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 56Section 9

earned from provision of various group services (such as treasury services, business area services and market area services) is taxable in India as fees for technical services (“FTS") under the provisions of Article 12 of the India-Finland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) without appreciating that such income ... para 2 of the Article 12 and proposed an addition of ₹ 38,48,97,421/- to the income of the assessee as fee for technical services. 4.1 Regarding the taxability of income from IT services rendered under the service agreement with Outotec India Pvt. Ltd., the Ld. Panel upheld

Lioyd'S Register of Shipping (Now Known As Lioyd 'S Register Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1457/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Lloyd’S Register Of Shipping Dy. Cit (It)-3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, (Now Known As Lloyd’S Register Group Ltd.) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 17Th Floor, Unit No. 1702, 1703 & Vs. 1704, Building Q2, Aurum Q Parc, Gen 4/1, Ttc, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400 710

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 234CSection 40

case, the IT Recharge of Rs.3,82,28,189/- is not chargeable to tax as it is not in nature of fees for technical services in view of Article 13 of the DTAA between India and UK. 4. Be that as it may, at the outset, we propose to deal ... management charges are not taxable under Article 13(4)(c) of India-UK DTAA, is not acceptable, as such receipts qualify as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under the treaty provisions. Hence, have to be taxed @ 15%. He further observed that in A.Y. 2009-10, in assessee’s case

Adp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 975/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195Section 234ASection 40Section 92C

business support services without any element of technology, the payment made by the appellant-company does not fall under the definition of “Fees for Technical Services” [in short “FTS”] as defined u/sec.9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, income of ADP, Australia, is not liable ... taxes under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that, payment made to ADP-Australia is in the nature of Fees for Technical Services [in short “FTS”] as defined u/sec. 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further observed that, assessee itself has made application

Veritas Storage (Singapore) Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1913/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Gulati, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)

learned AO grossly erred in re-characterizing the transaction in relation to income from the sale of maintenance support and training services as Fees for Technical Services (FTS), where under the same circumstances, for AY 2016-17, the Department has allegedly assessed the same as Royalty. 1.2 This ... Singapore] Pte Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. support and training services as Royalty and in the instant year has assessed the same as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) which is in violation of the principle of consistency and judicial discipline and relied on the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v Commissioner

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

will not be applicable. It is also evident that the payments made to foreign agent is sales commission and cannot be deemed, as fee for technical services and thus provisions of section 9 (1) (vii) will also be not applicable. Now, if the payments to the foreign agents ... receipt fulfills the conditions as stipulated in different categories of income in that section like business income with business connection in India or fees for technical services which was utilized in India in any manner. 21. Therefore, learned CIT (A) observed that by no stretch of imagination

DCIT(TDS)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4431/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Mumbai, ............... Appellant V/S Piramal Enterprises Limited, Piramal Ananta, Agastya Corporate Park Kamini Junction Lbs Marg Opp. Fire Brigade Kurla, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400070 Pan : Aaacn5024A

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi (Virtually present)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 133B(2)Section 193Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

whether such a fees paid to the arranger can be termed as "interest" within the meaning of section 2(28A) or "fees for technical services for service" within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii). 10. The definition of "interest" u/s 2(28A) reads as under:- "interest" means interest payable

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 443/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Tyco Fire & Security India Of Income Tax, Private Ltd., International Taxation, D-601, Campus 6Th Floor, Circle 2(2), Rmz Centennial, Kundanahalli, Vs. Bangalore. Main Road, Mahadevapura S.O., Bengaluru North. Pan: Aabct 0087C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ninad Patade, Ar Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 O R D E R Per Soundararajan Kthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Challenging The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 20.12.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & A Part Of Tyco Group Which Is A Leader In Global Fire Safety & Security Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Ninad Patade, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 201(1)

deducted TDS while making payments to the said concerns. The assessee contended that remuneration given to the said entities would not qualify as fees for technical services / fees for included services under the India-Singapore and India-US DTAAs and therefore there is no default on the part

Microad India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 16(2), Delhi

Appeals is allowed

ITA 4714/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Khanna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 165Section 195Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

payments made by the appellant to its AE(s) for purchase of online advertisement on third party platforms after deeming them Fees for Technical services. The appellant 2 ITA No.-4714/Del/2024 Microad India Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the aforesaid transactions were in nature of purchase of online advertisements from

ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs. Subramaniam Hariharan, New Delhi

ITA 600/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Tanya Sharma, Sr. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 40

individuals invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act, allegedly holding that the said payments were in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) 3 and therefore, were chargeable to tax in India, thus tax at source should have been deducted. The same was sustained ... Counsel has submitted that the payments made by the Appellant were for availing professional services and were not in the nature of “Fees for Technical Services”, thus, not chargeable to tax under section 4 read with sections 5 and 9 of the Act. Ld. DR on the contrary relied

Subramaniam Hariharan, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

ITA 9832/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 40

individuals invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act, allegedly holding that the said payments were in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) 3 ITAs No.600/Del/2020, 9832/Del/2019 & 2134/Del/2018 and therefore, were chargeable to tax in India, thus tax at source should have been deducted. The same ... Counsel has submitted that the payments made by the Appellant were for availing professional services and were not in the nature of “Fees for Technical Services”, thus, not chargeable to tax under section 4 read with sections 5 and 9 of the Act. Ld. DR on the contrary relied

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 37, New Delhi

ITA 2134/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 40

Manisha Kiran Temkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT -21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 674/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 195Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 90(2)

section 9(1) and accordingly, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the remittances to the parties in the nature of fees and technical services and Royalty. The assessee has not furnished copy of agreement with parties to whom foreign remittances were paid and agreement only with Bangladesh parties ... Mohan Kanchan (ITA No. 824/Mum/2015) 5. The ld AR of the assessee further submits that Inspection and testing charge cannot be considered as fees for technical services as has been held by Mumbai Tribunal in case of ACIT vs Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4300/M/2016. Further, payment

Manish Kiran Temkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 673/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 195Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 90(2)

Tfdac Ireland II Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(1)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1198/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

provisions which shall form an integral part of the Convention.” xxx “7. In respect of articles 11 (Dividends), 12 (Interest) and 13 (Royalties, fees for technical services and payments for the use of equipment), if under any Convention, Agreement or Protocol signed after 1-9-1989, between India ... third State which is a member of the OECD, India limits its taxation at source on dividends, interest, royalties, fees for technical services or payments for the use of equipment to a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate of scope provided for in this Convention

Dae(Sy22) Leasing (Ireland)41, Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1157/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

provisions which shall form an integral part of the Convention.‖ xxx ―7. In respect of articles 11 (Dividends), 12 (Interest) and 13 (Royalties, fees for technical services and payments for the use of equipment), if under any Convention, Agreement or Protocol signed after 1-9-1989, between India ... third State which is a member of the OECD, India limits its taxation at source on dividends, interest, royalties, fees for technical services or payments for the use of equipment to a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate of scope provided for in this Convention

Dae (Sabs) Leasing Ireland 43 Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax.Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1156/MUM/2025[2022-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-22

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Dae (Sabs) 10296 Ireland Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation), Cirlce 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1155/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Sky High Xliii Leasing Company Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4 (2) (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1122/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Ortus Aircraft Lease 5( Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1108/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23