← All Phrases

“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

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1228/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the receipts of the respondent/assessee wherein from its members were not in the nature of fees for technical services and that the same were exempt from tax having regard to the principle of mutuality.” 18.2. Therefore if the membership fee/ annual entrance

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopaledenred Pte. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O, Walker Chandiok & Income-Tax, International Co. Llp, 11Th Floor, Tower Taxation-2(2)(1) Ii, One International Room No.1722,17Th Floor, Center, S.B. Marg, Air India Building, Prabhadevi (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai – 400013 Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aacce8636P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Jitendra Singh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

For Appellant: Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

technical services as defined in the DTAA, (vi) therefore, the fees paid to AXA ARC by the applicant does not amount to fees for technical services within the meaning of the DTAA, (vii) as regards the payments made for providing access to software applications and to the server hardware system ... Indian company for referring customers to the latter is neither business income u/s 9{l)(i) nor royalty u/s 9(l)(vi) nor fee for technical services u/s 9(l)(vii) r. w. Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA between India & Singapore and, therefore, it is taxable as business

Advics Company Ltd., Karnataka vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

against the returned income of INR 10,05,04,070 offered to tax by the Appellant. Taxability of employee cost reimbursements as Fee for Technical Services ('FTS) amounting to INR 2,70,27,031 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld ... received by the assessee on account of expat/ seconded employees cost reimbursement from the Indian AEs to be taxable as Fees for Technical Services (“FTS”) as per Article 12 of the India-Japan DTAA as well as under the provisions of the Act to the returned income

Shri Mufiz Burhamuddin Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41Section 68

ready reference :- “(ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work)], on which

Six Continents Hotels Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle- 3 (1)(2) - International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17 Six Continents Hotels Inc. Vs. Acit Dlf Bldg No. 10, 8Th Floor, Circle-3(1)(2), Tower B, Dlf Cyber City, Ph-Ii, International Gurgaon-122002 Taxation, State Haryana New Delhi. Pan Aahcs7853B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 9(1)(vi)

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in treating Marketing and Reservation contribution as Fee for Technical Services ('FTS") under Article 12 of India - USA DTAA 1.7 On the facts and in circumstances of the case ... been incidental to the same. Accordingly, the coordinate bench came to the conclusion that the receipt is not taxable as a Royalty or Fees for Technical Services and therefore is not taxable in the hands of the assessee in the absence of any PE in India. The relevant findings

Ups Jetair Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed, the ground no

ITA 1622/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.1622/मुं/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 32Section 40

assessee would have made direct payments to RMS for debtors collection services it does not fall within the ambit of Royalties or Fees for Technical Services under the Act as well as under Article 13 of the India-USA Tax Treaty and hence provisions of Section 195 does ... assessee would have made direct payments to RMS for debtors collection services it does not fall within the ambit of Royalties or Fees for Technical Services under the Act as well as under Article 13 of the India-USA Tax Treaty and hence provisions of Section 195 does

ACIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ups Jetair Express Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1591/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.1622/मुं/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 32Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण मुंबई पीठ “जे”, मुंबई श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल, लेखक्कर सदस्य के समक्ष

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in law in considering the services between head office and Branch office as fees for Technical Services without appreciating that the condition of Make Available clause is not satisfied in transaction between head office and Branch office which ... Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and Spain read with protocol of Most Favored Nation (MFN), hence such transaction cannot be considered as Fees for Technical Services. 5. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in law in considering the services between head office

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in law in considering the services between head office and Branch office as fees for Technical Services without appreciating that the condition of Make Available clause is not satisfied in transaction between head office and Branch office which ... Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and Spain read with protocol of Most Favored Nation (MFN), hence such transaction cannot be considered as Fees for Technical Services. 5. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in law in considering the services between head office

Herbert Smith Free LLP, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 3994/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Herbert Smith Free Llp Vs. Dcit C/O Srbc & Associates Circle 2(1)(1) Llp, Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Gurgaon Haryana Pin 122002 Pan Aaffh0766B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

taxation of entire revenue received by the Appellant from provision of legal services on Indian engagements (amounting to GBP 22,45,971) as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act for the subject assessment year. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred

Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, Ahmedabad vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40

from 01.04.2010 and the provision so amended reads as under:- “(ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply

Gloster Ltd(Formerly Known As Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 40Section 74

Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of— (a) fees for professional services, or (b) fees for technical services, 2 [or] 3 [(ba) any remuneration or fees or commission by whatever name called, other than those on which tax is deductible under

Ge Healthcare Finland Oy(Formerly Known As Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd, Bangalore vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation -1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the two appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 311/KOL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 9Section 92Section 92C

Contracting State, the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of the interest.” ARTICLE 12 ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES “1. Royalties or fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State ... taxed in that other State. 2. However, such royalties or 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 is a resident of the other Contracting State

Ge Healthcare Finland Oy(Formerly Known As Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd, Bangalore vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation -1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the two appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 310/KOL/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 9Section 92Section 92C

Contracting State, the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of the interest.” ARTICLE 12 ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES “1. Royalties or fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State ... taxed in that other State. 2. However, such royalties or 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 is a resident of the other Contracting State

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2) (1), Mumbai

ITA 3339/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270A

allocation without markup and hence does not constitute 'income' under section 2(24) of the Act, Receipts towards IT Support services held as 'Fees for Technical Services'('FTS') under the Act as well as India-Netherlands DTAA 4 Erred in holding that payments ... Support Services. According to the Assessing Officer, the IT Support Services were liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant as Fee for Technical Services in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as in terms of Article

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(1), Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 754/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

want of deduction of tax at source. 13.2 The Ld. CIT(A), after considering assessee’s submissions, held that Fees for Technical Services means managerial, technical and consultancy services but do not include payments considered as salary by the recipient of such income. Journalism is the process of collection, analyzing ... further appeal before us. 13.3 Admittedly, none of the payee has permanent establishment in India. As noted by Ld. CIT(A), Fees for Technical Services means managerial, technical and consultancy services. The process of gathering information is nothing but a profession and these kind of services are covered under specific

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(1), Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 737/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

want of deduction of tax at source. 13.2 The Ld. CIT(A), after considering assessee’s submissions, held that Fees for Technical Services means managerial, technical and consultancy services but do not include payments considered as salary by the recipient of such income. Journalism is the process of collection, analyzing ... further appeal before us. 13.3 Admittedly, none of the payee has permanent establishment in India. As noted by Ld. CIT(A), Fees for Technical Services means managerial, technical and consultancy services. The process of gathering information is nothing but a profession and these kind of services are covered under specific

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(1), Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 730/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

want of deduction of tax at source. 13.2 The Ld. CIT(A), after considering assessee’s submissions, held that Fees for Technical Services means managerial, technical and consultancy services but do not include payments considered as salary by the recipient of such income. Journalism is the process of collection, analyzing ... further appeal before us. 13.3 Admittedly, none of the payee has permanent establishment in India. As noted by Ld. CIT(A), Fees for Technical Services means managerial, technical and consultancy services. The process of gathering information is nothing but a profession and these kind of services are covered under specific

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

case of petitioner's expatriate employee, Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 in November, 1998 seeking to reassess same income as fees for technical services - Whether law prevailing on date of issue of impugned notice would apply to instant case, and since new section 147 had come into ... case, - O.N.G.C.'s case (supra), it had been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. As regards alternative remedy, since the notice under section 148 was without jurisdiction, the petitioner should not be relegated to his alternative remedy

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1637/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

case of petitioner's expatriate employee, Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 in November, 1998 seeking to reassess same income as fees for technical services - Whether law prevailing on date of issue of impugned notice would apply to instant case, and since new section 147 had come into ... case, - O.N.G.C.'s case (supra), it had been held that the income from the contract between the parties was business income and not fee for technical services. As regards alternative remedy, since the notice under section 148 was without jurisdiction, the petitioner should not be relegated to his alternative remedy