“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

Hakam Fluid Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

erred in confirming that the service receipts of the Appellant frown RII, are taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FIS) under Section 901(vi) of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. AO has erred in proposing ... whether receipts by the Appellant for rendition of "Engineering and Procurement Support Services" rendered from outside India are in the nature of "Fees for Technical Services" ("FTS") as set out under Article 13(4)(c) of the India - UK DTAA. The said Article is reproduced below, for the sake

Parvinder Kaur Sawhney, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi -12, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 626/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

addition of INR 2,42,65,46,501 by treating total income received from repair and maintenance services rendered by the Assessee as Fee for technical services ('FTS') Page 3 of 25 ITA Nos. 665,666,620 & 626/DEL/2025 Pratt & Whitney Vs. DCIT under the provisions of the Act without appreciating ... 626/DEL/2025 Pratt & Whitney Vs. DCIT plan or technical design, the same did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') as per the provisions of India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 11. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had also

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs. ACIT, (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 2695/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanddit, Circle 2 (2), Vs. Sms Siemag Ag, New Delhi. C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A-1D, Vandhna, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 01. (Aadcs1173J) Sms Siemag Ag, Vs. Ddit, Circle 2 (2), C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi. 1A-1D, Vandhna, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 01. (Aadcs1173J)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

Rs.8,11,98,063/- ITA No.3071/DEL/2019 ITA No.1443 & 1444/DEL/2022 6. The assessee has recognized the above revenue and offered to tax as ‘Fee for technical services’ @ 10% as per the DTAA between India and Germany. 7. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the receipts from Jindal ... reassessment order as made, has erroneously treated the whole of the amount including that for the supply of equipment as "Fees for Technical Services". He has failed to consider that consideration for supply of equipment in any case is not liable to tax in India, which position he has himself

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1561/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1561/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Income Tax, Vs. India Ltd., Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, Large Taxpayer Unit, Circle-1(I/C), Chennai. 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaacm 6469L]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)

liable to deduct TDS on payment of such fee as it is taxable in India u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act as fees for technical services. The A.O therefore has made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Tribunal

Janet Christine Depenning, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1319/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 & 1323/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 Janet Christine Depenning, The Income Tax Officer, 120, Velachery Main Road, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Guindy,Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aebpd 2408L]

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A LMFor Respondent: Smt. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(1)(viii)

passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act has held that the remittances made by the assessee to the foreign attorneys is fee for technical services as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(viii) of the Act and hence, income deemed to be accrued in India and therefore ... confirmed the order of A.O holding the foreign remittances are in the nature of fee for technical services and tax needs to be deducted u/s. 195 of the Act. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee has submitted that the Ld AO/CIT(A) have not considered the provisions

DCIT Corporate Circle 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee & Revenue for AYs 2011-

ITA 3024/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishit (Tp) A No.3/Chny/2018 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S.Vestas Wind Technology- India Pvt. Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aaaca 9274 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dy. Commissioner- Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.3024/Chny/2019 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner- Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. V. M/S.Vestas Wind Technology- India Pvt. Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aaaca 9274 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Shri N.V.Balaji, Adv. : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 08.10.2024 : 31.12.2024 It (Tp) A No.3/Chny/2018 For Ay 2011-12 &

Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

India. 1.3 The Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP exceeded the jurisdiction by examining whether the payment made by the Appellant is Fees for Technical Services. Ground 2 Disallowance of performance guarantee fee under section ... erred in law and in facts by holding the payment made by the Appellant towards performance guarantee as "Fees for technical services" under Section 9(1)(vii) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) Consequently, the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in holding that the Appellant

DCIT(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2342/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Revenue, being ITA Nos. 1774/Mum/2024 and 2341/Mum/2024, the first common issue is with regard to taxability of administrative support service charges as fees for technical services (FTS) in terms of Article 13 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India – United Kingdom (UK). CO Nos. 100 to 103/Mum/2024 Jefferies International ... extent to which the benefit under the India-UK DTAA can be made available to the Petitioner. As already noticed, the definition of "fee for technical services" occurring in Article 13(4) of the Indo- UK DTAA clearly excludes managerial services. What is being provided by Steria France

DCIT(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2341/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1775/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1774/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Harley-Davidson Motor Company Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle- 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3753/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraharley – Davidson Motor Vs. Acit, International Tax Company Inc. Circle –2(1)(1), C/O. H-D Motor Company New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd. Building No.5, Tower A, Level-18, Dlf Cyber City Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Aacch 6849 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Shri Jaskaran Sarkaria, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)

hardware including services procured from third party and overhead thereof ('routine GIS Services') to its affiliate in India are in the nature of fees for technical services ('FTS') / Fees for Included Services ('FIS') under Article 12 of the India - US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') (erroneous reference to the India ... hardware procured from 3rd party and other head thereof (‘routine GIS services’) to is affiliate in India are in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (‘FTS’) / Fees for Included Services (‘FIS’) under Article 12 of the India – US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’). Undisputedly, learned

Sumo Logic, Inc., Usa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3350/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Assessment Year : 2021-22 Sumo Logic, Inc. Vs. Acit, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, 305 Main Street, Delhi. Redwood City, California, Foreign, United States. C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Tower-B, 7Th Floor, Building 10, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon-122002. (Pan: Abecs 9368 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. & Shri Aditya Rathore, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Vijay B Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2024 Date Of Order : 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. The Captioned Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR

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

technical knowledge/ skill etc. to the customers. It was submitted that the above said revenues are neither taxable as royalty nor as fees for technical services (FTS) under the Income tax Act, 1961 as well as the India-US tax treaty. The assessee has received following receipts from India ... copyright. 17. Having held so, the next issue which arises for consideration is, whether the subscription fee can be treated as fees for technical services. As discussed earlier, it is evident that the assessee has collated data from various journals and articles and put them in a structured manner

DCIT (It) 3.1.2, Income Tax Office, Kautiliya Bhawan vs. Linklaters and Paines, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous

ITA 5119/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit(It) 3(1)(2) Vs. Linklaters & Paines Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Kautilya C/O- Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 Tower 3, 28Th -30Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai. Pan: Aabfl2160M

Section 115ASection 9Section 9(1)(vil)

having any permanent establishment in term of Article 5(2)(k)(i), without considering that the receipts of the assessee is fees for technical services as per meaning of section 9(1)(vil). Explanation 2 and therefore is taxable on gross basis under section 115A of the Income ... case and in law the CII(A) is justified in holding that receipts from consultancy services does not fall in the category of fee for technical services under India-UK DTAA, without considering that the provision of DTAA between India and UK are not available to the assessee

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

that in case, if the contention of the Appellant on the non-taxability of INR 8,74,34,868 (received from HLPL) as fees for technical services under Article 12 of DTAA (as per Ground No. 4 below) is accepted, then the corresponding transfer pricing adjustment in relation ... from interest on account of loan given by the assessee to its Indian ITA No.2390/Ahd/2018 & 1783/Ahd/2019 with CO 11 AE, or from fees for technical services rendered to the Indian assessee, but an ALP adjustment of Rs 400 is made in respect of this income. In such a situation, what

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Tungsten Network Limited, United Kingdom vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, Minto Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2238/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita Nos. 2237 & 2238/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Tungsten Network Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit Anil Saraf, No.8-2-350/3/C, Civic Centre, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Minto Road, Hyderabad, Telangana-34 New Delhi – 110 002 Pan : Aajct 5973 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Saraf, C.A. & Shri Anish Raj Saraf, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Bench :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

Nos.2237 & 2238/Del/2024 Tungston Network Ltd. Vs. DCIT A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Rs.2,93,92,810/- are being treated as “fee for technical services to be taxed @ 10% was proposed”. Assessee filed objections before Hon’ble DRP on 26.06.2023. Hon’ble DRP vide order dated 22.02.2024 issued directions. In compliance ... without considering the evidence and submissions erred in holding that the business receipts received by assessee is taxable as fees for technical services under Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as India – UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) which is against the principle of law and agreements are liable

Tungsten Network Limited, United Kingdom vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, Minto Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2237/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2358/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(i)

sole basis to state that the source in India. Had that been so, the provisions of section 9 "Interest "Royalty, Rum "Fees for technical services" etc would not have been introduced and would become redundant as they deem income to be taxable in India based "situs of the payer.  Reliance ... placed on the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act "Fees for technical services which deems FTS to be taxable in India based on situs of the payer.  In contrast, section 9(1)(i) of the Act deems income based on all income accruing or arising, whether directly

Criteo Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Ciricle 1(2)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2122/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

receipts from external consultants’ services amounting to 3,07,307 and travel-related receipts amounting to INR 19,96,671 as ‘Fee for technical services’ under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12(4) of India-Singapore DTAA, without appreciating that: a) The said services ... data storage facility of the Act and under Article Provision of advertisement 12(3) of India - Singapore 2. 6,09,254 space DTAA. Fee for technical services 3. Business Support Services 3,84,54,562 under section 9(1)(vii) of the 4. External consultants’ services

Nikhil Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalnikhil Sharma, 6, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur–302001. Pan No.: Bijps 2623B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito,Ward-1(3), Jaipur – 302 001. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139Section 194HSection 201Section 250Section 40Section 9

this sub-clause,— (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 Explanation2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) "professional services" shall have