← 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

Michael Page International Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Tax) -3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 751/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Michael Page International Pte Limited, C/O.Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, 2North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Compelx, Mumbai -400 051 Pan:Aahcm-6965-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi Maru ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Assessment Order By Raising Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

holding the amount for business support services of INR 4,15,23,335 and referral fees of INR 6,40,856 as 'Fees for technical services' under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and Singapore ('the DTAA1) despite the fact that the Appellant ... Rs.42,16,420/-. The Assessing Officer held that the fees received by the assessee from its Indian entity is in the nature of “Fee for Technical Services” and hence, made 3 addition of Rs.4,21,64,190/-. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) but remained unsuccessful

Shell Informaation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 996/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 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 3. Erred in holding that payments ... assessment proceedings, the assessee was sought to explain as to why the receipts towards IT support services should not be treated as fee for technical services under the Act as well as under the DTAA as has been done in earlier years. In reply, the assessee submitted that it works

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2308/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 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 3. Erred in holding that payments ... assessment proceedings, the assessee was sought to ask as to why the receipts towards IT support services should not be treated as fee for technical services under the Act as well as under the DTAA as has been done in earlier years. In reply, the assessee submitted that it works

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

sums paid to the aforesaid non- IT(TP) A No. 270/Bang/2021 Tyco Fire and Security India Pvt.Ltd. residents were in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and was chargeable to tax in India as per the provisions of Sec.9(1)(vii) of the Act. 56. Before the Dispute ... that having regard to the nature of services, these could at best be managerial or consultancy services and hence could be characterised as Fees for technical services (“FTS”) / Fees for included services (“FIS”) as per the provisions of the Act but cannot be taxed in India as per the applicable

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

dated 29.5.2020 – ITAT Bangalore DIT(IT) v Panalfa Autoelektrik Ltd [2014] 49 taxmann.com 412 – Commission paid to foreign agents cannot be regarded as fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) 26 Disallowance of Commission paid Device Driven (India) P Ltd v CIT [2021] 126 taxmann.com 25 (Kerala) Without prejudice ... submitted that, commission paid by assessee to its foreign agent for arranging of export sales and recovery of payments cannot be regarded as fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii). He also relied on following decisions holding that export commission is not Fees for technical services under section

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1526/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalrenaissance Services Bv, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 Pan: Aaecr4995E ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Paras Savla/Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

training programs for managerial employees of the Indian hotels under the Training and Computer Systems Agreement (TCSA) were not in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as well as under Article 12(5) of the India ... costs incurred by the Assessee the TCSA (such as medical insurance premium, stock compensation and like benefits) were not in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

Rs.1,72,51,564/-, however, did not deduct any tax at source. The learned Assessing Officer held the same to be fees for technical services under Section 194J of the Act or under Section 194C of the Act. Therefore, he disallowed the sum applying the provisions of Section

M/S Ge T&D India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

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

ITA 725/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 725/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010 - 11 Ge T&D India Ltd., The Dcit, 19/1, Ioc Building, Gst Road, Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Pallavaram, Chennai Chennai – 600 043. Pan: Aaacg 2115R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadhri, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandian, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

user rights service. It was also contended that the Authority for Advance Ruling held that income earned by Alstom Grid was taxable as Fee for Technical Services. and as such, the payment by the assessee company to Alstom Grid cannot be termed as capital expenditure. The reply was examined ... agreement on its expiry. We are of the view that the services provided under the IT Agreement are in the nature of Fees for Technical Services and taxable under the DTAA as well as under the Act". Since the AAR decided that the payment is intended for enduring benefit

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2092/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Remittances made towards general training services treated as Fees or Technical Services (FTS). 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO treating the Appellant as "assessee in default" under section ... services provided by SCB, Singapore cannot be construed as technical services and as such the same will not fall within the meaning of "fees for technical services" as defined in explanation (2) to section 9(l)(vii) of the Act. 2.6 The CFT(A) erred in incorrectly understanding the nature

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 721/CHNY/2020[2019-20 (April, 2018-September, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 195(2)

beneficiaries. 6. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that in respect of payments made to BASF SE, the same cannot be treated as Fees for technical services, in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that no technology ... made available to the appellant and accordingly the payment is not in the nature of fees for technical services. 7. The learned CIT (A) erred in not following the case laws cited by the Appellant. 8. Your Appellant prefers this appeal on these grounds and such other grounds that

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 720/CHNY/2020[2018-19 (October, 2017 to March, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 195(2)

beneficiaries. 6. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that in respect of payments made to BASF SE, the same cannot be treated as Fees for technical services, in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that no technology ... made available to the appellant and accordingly the payment is not in the nature of fees for technical services. 7. The learned CIT (A) erred in not following the case laws cited by the Appellant. 8. Your Appellant prefers this appeal on these grounds and such other grounds that

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

other contracting state, the scheme of taxability on the gross basis, as implicit in the taxation of dividend, interest, royalties and fees for technical services, and other incomes, under the tax treaties, comes to an end. Article 11(5) specifically provides that the provisions of Article

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

other contracting state, the scheme of taxability on the gross basis, as implicit in the taxation of dividend, interest, royalties and fees for technical services, and other incomes, under the tax treaties, comes to an end. Article 11(5) specifically provides that the provisions of Article

Intrado Ec India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 2CSection 40Section 92C

same payments made by the assessee for receipt of management services by holding that the payments are in the nature of Fees for Technical services [FTS]. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the DRP, who confirmed the additions/disallowances. Aggrieved by the final order of assessment passed pursuant ... skill, know-how or processes which are being made available to the assessee which is a condition precedent for a consideration to be fees for technical services under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee therefore submitted that the impugned payments by the assessee fail the test of “make

Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2084/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2084/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Eversendai Construction- V. The Dy. Commissioner- Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.1 & 2, The Lords, Corporate Circle-2(1), Block-1, 5Th Floor, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

AO/DRP erred in law and facts of the case by concluding that the reimbursement of expenses paid were in the nature of Fees for Technical Services. 3.4 The AO/DRP ought to have appreciated that the reimbursements were on cost to cost basis i.e. without any mark-up and as such

Spencer Stuart International B.V. Tax, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It) -4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 514/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

Rs.12,25,20,725 /- received by the appellant from Spencer Stuart India Private Limited [SS India] towards executive search fees is taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Articles ... said years wherein the CIT(A) has held that search fees remitted by SS India to the assessee company do not represent fees for technical services under Article 12(5)(a) of the India- Netherlands tax treaty and is not subject to TDS under section

Spencer Stuart International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

Rs.9,65,77,826/- received by the appellant from Spencer Stuart India Private Limited [SS India] towards executive search fees is taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Articles ... said years wherein the CIT(A) has held that search fees remitted by SS India to the assessee company do not represent fees for technical services under Article 12(5)(a) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty and is not subject to TDS under section

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT (International Taxationa)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1013/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 44B

amount recovered by it from its agents is in the nature of reimbursement of expenses. The AO, however, held to it to be fee for technical services. 18. Before the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee has also taken a plea that the communication system is very much an integral ... 14/07/2022 requested for admission of following additional ground of appeal: “Additional Ground- Non-taxability of income in the nature of IT support services [Fees for Technical Services ('FTS')) amounting to INR 8,29,29,430/-: 16. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays

Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle - 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2791/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S.Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.672, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Temple Tower, Chennai. Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.

For Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

resident marketing partners without deduction of TDS and thus, opined that services rendered by marketing partner, are in the nature of Fees for technical Services (in short “FTS") as per Explanation-2 to Sec.9(1)(vii) of the Act, and thus, rejected the arguments of the assessee and disallowed payment

M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 338/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 92C

deducted on the reimbursements made to the AE. The AO rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to treat the payment as fees for technical services and held that the same was liable to be deducted at source u/s. 195 since the assessee has not deducted ... deemed to accrue or arise in India:- (i) to (vi) IT(TP)A No.338/Bang/2021 Page 17 of 32 (vii) income by way of fees for technical services payable by— (a) the Government ; or (b) a person who is a resident, except where the fees are payable in respect of services