← 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

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotel Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-8(1), Kol, Kolkata

Accordingly, relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the disallowance of Rs.69,970/- is deleted. Ground No. 3 raised for Assessment Year 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Apeejay House 15, Park Street Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aaacb7961L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 28/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The First Common Ground Raised By The Assessee For Both The Assessment Years Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Disallowing Interest On Borrowed Funds. For The Sake Of Convenience, Facts In Respect Of This Issue Is Taken From Ita No. 372/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2016-17. 2

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwary, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250

basically a guest feedback system which the assessee has used in its hotel business. It is not the case of any fees for technical services. The alleged sum being normal AMC charges, paid to foreign company having no permanent establishment in India, no tax at source is deductible from

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

Accordingly, relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the disallowance of Rs.69,970/- is deleted. Ground No. 3 raised for Assessment Year 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Apeejay House 15, Park Street Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aaacb7961L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 28/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The First Common Ground Raised By The Assessee For Both The Assessment Years Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Disallowing Interest On Borrowed Funds. For The Sake Of Convenience, Facts In Respect Of This Issue Is Taken From Ita No. 372/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2016-17. 2

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwary, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250

basically a guest feedback system which the assessee has used in its hotel business. It is not the case of any fees for technical services. The alleged sum being normal AMC charges, paid to foreign company having no permanent establishment in India, no tax at source is deductible from

ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2936/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

Also refer to Para 7 of Article 7 which provides that no expenses by way of royalty or fee for technical services (except reimbursement of actuals) to Head Office should be allowed as deduction. Kindly specify as to why the expenses claimed by you should not be disallowed under Article ... reimbursement of Rs. 41.97 crores made by the Indian branch to the HO and other overseas branches should not be treated as fees for technical services(FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, also explain why the amount Page No.| 40 ITA NO.1407

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2839/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

Also refer to Para 7 of Article 7 which provides that no expenses by way of royalty or fee for technical services (except reimbursement of actuals) to Head Office should be allowed as deduction. Kindly specify as to why the expenses claimed by you should not be disallowed under Article ... reimbursement of Rs. 41.97 crores made by the Indian branch to the HO and other overseas branches should not be treated as fees for technical services(FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, also explain why the amount Page No.| 40 ITA NO.1407

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1683/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 195Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

Also refer to Para 7 of Article 7 which provides that no expenses by way of royalty or fee for technical services (except reimbursement of actuals) to Head Office should be allowed as deduction. Kindly specify as to why the expenses claimed by you should not be disallowed under Article ... reimbursement of Rs. 41.97 crores made by the Indian branch to the HO and other overseas branches should not be treated as fees for technical services(FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, also explain why the amount of Rs.41.97 crores debited

ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1407/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

Also refer to Para 7 of Article 7 which provides that no expenses by way of royalty or fee for technical services (except reimbursement of actuals) to Head Office should be allowed as deduction. Kindly specify as to why the expenses claimed by you should not be disallowed under Article ... reimbursement of Rs. 41.97 crores made by the Indian branch to the HO and other overseas branches should not be treated as fees for technical services(FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, also explain why the amount Page No.| 40 ITA NO.1407

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 885/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

from the assessee's group company amounting to Rs 20,84,14,276/-, it was held that these are in the nature of Fees for Technical Services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act and are taxable as per Section 115A of the Act. The assessee has offered ... assessing officer erred on facts and in law in taxing global operation fee of Rs.7,56,44,040 received from GETDIL as Fees from Technical Services ("FTS") under the provisions of the Act and the India-UK DTAA, without appreciating that the provision of said services by the Appellant

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 884/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

from the assessee's group company amounting to Rs 20,84,14,276/-, it was held that these are in the nature of Fees for Technical Services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act and are taxable as per Section 115A of the Act. The assessee has offered ... assessing officer erred on facts and in law in taxing global operation fee of Rs.7,56,44,040 received from GETDIL as Fees from Technical Services ("FTS") under the provisions of the Act and the India-UK DTAA, without appreciating that the provision of said services by the Appellant

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2240/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

from the assessee's group company amounting to Rs 20,84,14,276/-, it was held that these are in the nature of Fees for Technical Services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act and are taxable as per Section 115A of the Act. The assessee has offered ... assessing officer erred on facts and in law in taxing global operation fee of Rs.7,56,44,040 received from GETDIL as Fees from Technical Services ("FTS") under the provisions of the Act and the India-UK DTAA, without appreciating that the provision of said services by the Appellant

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2239/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

from the assessee's group company amounting to Rs 20,84,14,276/-, it was held that these are in the nature of Fees for Technical Services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act and are taxable as per Section 115A of the Act. The assessee has offered ... assessing officer erred on facts and in law in taxing global operation fee of Rs.7,56,44,040 received from GETDIL as Fees from Technical Services ("FTS") under the provisions of the Act and the India-UK DTAA, without appreciating that the provision of said services by the Appellant

Spi Global Us Inc, Usa vs. DCIT International Taxation Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1912/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 9

circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities failed to appreciate that marketing service does not fall within the definition of Fees for Technical Services (“FTS”) under section 9 of the Act. 4.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities erred ... Trib) 449 (Delhi), Delhi Bench of the Tribunal pointed out that the expression “make available” in the context of ‘fees for technical services’ contemplates that the technical services should be of such a nature, that the payer comes to possess the technical knowledge so provided which enables it to utilize

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2086/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

unsustainable and deserves to be deleted. ITA No.2085 & 2086/Del/2022 GE Hydro France Re: Income of Rs.96,45,476 from Fees for Technical Services ("FTS") 14. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in applying the provisions of section 44BBB of the Act to bring ... Particulars 1 Income from THDC 38,46,36,867 2 Income from onshore activity from NHPC 3,10,31,524 3 Income from fees for technical services from 96,45,476 GEPIL 4 Expenses for duty drawback claim written off 3,20,01,335 Total

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2085/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

unsustainable and deserves to be deleted. ITA No.2085 & 2086/Del/2022 GE Hydro France Re: Income of Rs.96,45,476 from Fees for Technical Services ("FTS") 14. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in applying the provisions of section 44BBB of the Act to bring ... Particulars 1 Income from THDC 38,46,36,867 2 Income from onshore activity from NHPC 3,10,31,524 3 Income from fees for technical services from 96,45,476 GEPIL 4 Expenses for duty drawback claim written off 3,20,01,335 Total

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 457/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sesha Srinivas, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a

44any interest (not being interest on a loan issued for public subscription before the 1st day of April, 1938), royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act, which is payable,— (A) outside India; or (B) in India to a non-resident, not being a company ... clause,— (A) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (B) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; 47(ia)48 49[thirty

International Education & Research Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Int-Taxa-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid and directions

ITA 183/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

provision of India-UK DTAA under Article 13 of the DTAA. Relevant article 13 of DTAA is reproduced hereunder: "ARTICLE 13: ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES 3. For the purposes of this Article, the term "royalties" means : (a) payments of any kind received as a consideration ... under the provision of India- Swiss Confederation DTAA under Article 12, The relevant article 12 is reproduced here under: "ARTICLE 12: ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES … 3. The term "royalties" as used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration

International Education & Research Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Int-Taxa-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid and directions

ITA 182/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

provision of India-UK DTAA under Article 13 of the DTAA. Relevant article 13 of DTAA is reproduced hereunder: "ARTICLE 13: ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES 3. For the purposes of this Article, the term "royalties" means : (a) payments of any kind received as a consideration ... under the provision of India- Swiss Confederation DTAA under Article 12, The relevant article 12 is reproduced here under: "ARTICLE 12: ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES … 3. The term "royalties" as used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration

Elizebeth Simaputhran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, ITA No.906/Chny/2023 stand allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 907/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Dasआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.906/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.907/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mrs. Elizabeth Sima Puthran Ito Prop. M/S. Puthran & Associates Ward-(1) बनाम No.B3, 5/7, Kesavan Orchid, International Taxation, / Vs. North Mada Street, Sri Nagar Colony, Chennai. Saidapet , Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepe-0124-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)- Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

this plea was not taken by the assessee before Ld. AO. The Ld. Sr. DR also submitted that the services would fall under ‘Fees for Technical Services’. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeals are disposed-off as under. 3. From case records ... place of business in India and therefore, no TDS was required. The legal services were not part of technical services under ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (FTS). The assessee also submitted that ‘make available’ clause was not satisfied. It was also pointed out that the amount of Rs.34.22 Lacs includes official

Elizabeth Simaputhran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, ITA No.906/Chny/2023 stand allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 906/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Dasआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.906/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.907/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mrs. Elizabeth Sima Puthran Ito Prop. M/S. Puthran & Associates Ward-(1) बनाम No.B3, 5/7, Kesavan Orchid, International Taxation, / Vs. North Mada Street, Sri Nagar Colony, Chennai. Saidapet , Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepe-0124-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)- Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

this plea was not taken by the assessee before Ld. AO. The Ld. Sr. DR also submitted that the services would fall under ‘Fees for Technical Services’. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeals are disposed-off as under. 3. From case records ... place of business in India and therefore, no TDS was required. The legal services were not part of technical services under ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (FTS). The assessee also submitted that ‘make available’ clause was not satisfied. It was also pointed out that the amount of Rs.34.22 Lacs includes official

Bmc Software Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalibmc Software Asia Pacific Pte Vs Acit (Int. Taxation), Ltd., 600, Singapore, Circle-1, Pune. 20-01/10 Parkview Square, Foreign, Singapore. Pan: Aaecb 0642 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Farrokh V. Irani, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, DR
Section 274

considering the receipts of INR 37,88,48,645 from the support and maintenance services rendered in relation to sales as fees for technical services under the India-Singapore DTAA as well as under the Act and liable to tax in India. BMC Software Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. II. Other ... first component was chargeable as Royalty under the Act as well as Article 12(3)(a) and the second was taxable as `fees for technical services‟ under the Act and also Article 12(4)(a) of the DTAA. The contention of the assessee was that the second item

Sungard Availability Services Lp, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (It), Ward 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.987/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sungard Availability Services Lp, The Income Tax C/O.Suite 320, 565 Ease V Officer(It), Swedesford Road, Wayne, S Ward-4, Pune. Pennsylyania19087, Usa. B.O.Bhavan, Sector No.17, Pune Satara Road, Parvati, Pune – 411009. Pan: Abtfs0527J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Ganesh Bare – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 11.07.2023 Passed By Income Tax Officer(It), Ward-4, Pune Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, Passed In Pursuance To Directions Issued By Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2023.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Sungard Availability Services Lp, Usa [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

erred in taxing the amount of INR 842,703,639/- received by the Appellant from its Indian customer as ‘Fees for technical services’ as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12 of the India-ISA Double Tax Avoidance Agreement(‘DTAA’). The appellant