“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

DCIT(It), Circle-1, Pune vs. East West Seeds India Private Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 857/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 201Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)

given by the Assessing Officer (AO) that payments made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,91,82,330/- are in nature of Fees for technical services under the Income tax Act and therefore, taxable under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances ... Appeals Hortigenetics Research (S E Asia) Limited, is not taxable in India. However, the ITO(IT) held that income received as fees for technical services is nowhere mentioned in the India Thailand DTAA. Therefore, ITO invoked Article 22 of the DTAA and held that said income shall be taxable

DCIT(It), Circle-1, Pune vs. East West Seeds India Private Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 833/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 201Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)

Ca (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2078/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalca(Singapore) Pte Ltd., The Assistant Vs. C/O Ca (India) Technologies Commissioner Of India Private Limited, Income Tax, S1 Wipro Sez, International Taxation, Doddathogur Village, Circle2 (1)(1), Begur Hobli, Mumbai. Electronic City, Bangalore-560100. [Pan :Aahcc8349Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajit Jain, With Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, Ars Respondent By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, with Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 270ASection 274

Appellant. 3. Erroneous treatment of the consideration received from provision of ancillary support services in connection with the distribution of software licenses as Fee for Technical Services ('FTS') taxable in India 3.1 The Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in holding that consideration received by the Appellant ... above discussion and evidence on record, the sum of Rs 48,27,76,315/-being provision for Ancillary Support Services is treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) within the meaning of Article 12(4)(b) of the India- Singapore DTAA read with Section 9(1)(vii) of the Indian

Dr. Reddys, Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 491/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

applying most favoured nation clause as contained in India Netherlands tax treaty and by accessing India-Finland tax treaty, the payment towards fees for technical services to Dr. Reddy's Research & Development B.V. (formerly known as Octoplus B.V.) is not taxable in India. 7.3. That on the facts and circumstances

Dr. Reddys, Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 490/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Bombardier Inc., Quebec, Canada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1022/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbombardier Inc, Vs. Acit, 400, Dorval, Cote-Vertu, Circle-1(1)(2), Road West, Quebee Delhi Canada-H4S1Y9 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccb7177J Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Cas Shri Varun Jain, Ca Shri Mohit Agarwal, Ca Ms. Amulya K. Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAsFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

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

dismissed as not pressed. 4. The Ground Nos.1.4 and 1.5 raised by the Assessee are challenging the taxability of receipts from customers as fee for technical services (FTS) / fee for included services (FIS) under the domestic provisions and under the India Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 5. We have ... business. 6. The case of the lower authorities is that the nature and scope of SPQ 400 Agreement was in the nature of fee for technical services provided by the Assessee accordingly taxable under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act under the Domestic Law and also under Article

Toshiba Energy System & Solutions Corporation, Japan vs. DCIT Circle Intl Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed protanto

ITA 2113/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.2113/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21) Toshiba Energy System & Solutions Corporation, 72-34, Horikawa Cho, Saiwai Ku Kawasaki-Shi, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Kanagawa, Japan 212-0013 Pan Aagct-4986-R बिाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri Kashish Gupta, Chartered Accountant प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit(Dr) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

findings of the Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in treating the reimbursement of actual cost towards seconded employees 2 as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of India-Japan DTAA. He submitted that during the period relevant ... there. In other words, salaries paid to such personnel like Mr. Laser are taxable in India and they cannot be considered to be fees for technical services. Further, even as per Section 9 of the Act, the payment cannot be treated as fees for technical service. Explanation 2 to Section

Nunhems Netherlands B.V., Napoleonsweg, Netherlands vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3382/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270Section 9(1)(vi)

Assessee does not satisfy the "make available" clause under the DTAA and hence it is not liable to be taxed as Fee for Technical Services. Page 2 of 33 Nunhems Netherlands [A.Y 2021-22] 9. That the Ld. AO and Majority of Ld. DRP erred in law in ignoring decisions ... Assessee's contention that provision of testing services does not fall under the 'make available' clause and, therefore, is not taxable as fees for technical services. The ld AR concluded that the testing services are "services" rendered by the Page 6 of 33 Nunhems Netherlands [A.Y 2021-22] Assessee

Iqvia Ag, Switzerland vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Internaltional Taxation) - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 4549/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 90(2)

twin condition of (i) Rendering the services and India and (ii) utilization of services in India are satisfied for taxing subscription fees as Fees for Technical Services (FTS). It was observed that it is not the case of the assessee that the services are for a source outside India ... thus paving the way for taxability as FTS. It was further observed that the nature of services clearly falls under the concept of Fees for technical services, both under the Indo-Swiss DTAA as well as under the Act. Accordingly, in the draft assessment order, ITA No. 3359 & 4549/Mum/2023 IQVIA

Iqvia Ag, Switzerland vs. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3359/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 90(2)

Toshiba Corporation, Japan vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2587/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

appeal for adjudication is addition on account of payments made to seconded employees amounting to Rs.10,76,36,392/- being treated as 2 Fee for Technical Services (FTS) u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Article ... Indian entities clearly show the relation of employee and employer. The reimbursement of salary of expats does not partake the character of ‘Fee for Technical Service’ (FTS). The ld. Counsel for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions:  PCIT vs. Boeing India

S N Thakkar Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4588/MUM/2025[2018 - 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Kirit ShethFor Respondent: 12/11/2025

charges, professional and consultancy fees, fees for wages, security charges, professional and consultancy fees, fees for wages, security charges, professional and consultancy fees, fees for technical services and design charges, work assessment expenses, technical services and design charges, work assessment expenses, technical services and design charges, work assessment expenses, guest

Lm Wind Power As, Denmark vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

Reference is made to the provisions of section 44DA of the Act, which reads as under: “The income by way of royalty or fees for technical services received from Government or an Indian concern in pursuance of an agreement made by a non-resident (not being a company ... professional services from a fixed place of profession situated therein, and the right, property or contract in respect of which the royalties or fees for technical services are paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment or fixed place of profession, as the case may be, shall be computed under

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place

ITA 4092/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

premium from Indian cedents and the retrocession premium from SRIB. He further held that the service income received from SRIB and SRGBS constituted Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the treaty. On this basis he attributed profits to the alleged permanent establishment and taxed the service income ... turn to the taxability of service income received by the assessee from SRIB and SRGBS and its characterisation by the revenue as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India Singapore tax treaty. The Assessing Officer has proceeded on the footing that the services rendered by the assessee

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have

ITA 3178/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

Inteva Products Netherlands B.V., Netherlands vs. ACIT It Circle 2(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1344/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Inteva Products Netherlands B.V. Vs. Acit, It Circle 2(1)(1), Siriusdreef 17, 2132, Wt, Hoofddorp, Delhi. Netherlands. (Pan :Aadci5208G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(1)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2022-23Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle International Tax - 2(1)(1), Delhi ('Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Kshitij Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

directions of the Ld. DRP erred in treating the receipts for business support services of INR 8,28,34,750 as fees for technical services ('FTS) as per Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) without appreciating that the services are managerial in nature and hence ... order dated 27.01.2025 on the sole issue of taxability of business support services received by the assessee of Rs.8,28,34750/- as alleged fee for technical services (FTS) under Article 12 of India-Netherlands Tax Treaty as follows :- Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Returned Income 508,74,214 Add : additions

DCIT(It) 1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3127/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

erred in holding that 3 the payments made by the Indian Suppliers to the assessee is not Rs taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act? 4. Without prejudice, whether on the facts and in the circumstances ... erred in holding that the payments made by the Indian Suppliers to the assessee is not taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under the provisions of Article 12 of the DTAA?” 2. At the outset, it has been pointed out that in so far as Ground

DCIT(It)-1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3126/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT(It)-1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3125/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

erred in holding that 3 the payments made by the Indian Suppliers to the assessee is not Rs taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act? 4.Without prejudice, whether on the facts and in the circumstances ... erred in holding that the payments made by the Indian Suppliers to the assessee is not taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under the provisions of Article 12 of the DTAA?” 2. At the outset, it has been pointed out that in so far as Ground

Linklaters LLP, London vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle (3)(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Linklaters Llp Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Income Tax (International Llp, Tower 3, 27-32 Floor, One Taxation) - 3(1)(2), International Centre, Mumbai Elphinstone Mill Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (West), Mumbai – 400 013. (Pan: Aabcl5182G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

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

Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

income of the appellant is subject to UK laws and therefore the appellant is "liable to taxation" in the UK Fees considered as "fees for technical services" under the Income Tax Act, 1961 9. The learned AD erred in holding that the fees earned by the appellant ... nature of "fees for technical services as defined under section (1)(vii) of the Act. 10. The learned AD ought to have appreciated that the income earned by the appellant is covered by the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act 11. Without prejudice to the above