← 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

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2891/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Jr. Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR)
Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 80JSection 9(1)(vii)

that the payment to overseas group entities, towards reimbursement of salary, amounting to Rs 36,87,29,475 are in the nature of fees for technical services' as defined in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ['Tax Treaty"]. 10. The learned ... considering that the employees have not made available their service to the Appellant and accordingly the payment is not in the nature of 'fees for technical service' under Article 12 of the applicable tax treaty. 11. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and in facts, in not appreciating

Basf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 553/MUM/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022
Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

erred in holding that services rendered by BASF to its Indian affiliates are technical services which fall within the ambit of the term "fees for technical services" under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA'). 3. erred ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the payments made by the assessee for remittances are in the nature of fee for technical services and are liable for deduction of tax @10% as confirmed by the AO in order passed u/s 195(2) of the Act. Further

Basf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 552/MUM/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022
Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

erred in holding that services rendered by BASF to its Indian affiliates are technical services which fall within the ambit of the term "fees for technical services" under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA'). 3. erred ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the payments made by the assessee for remittances are in the nature of fee for technical services and are liable for deduction of tax @10% as confirmed by the AO in order passed u/s 195(2) of the Act. Further

Basf Se, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2070/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

erred in holding that services rendered by BASF to its Indian affiliates are technical services which fall within the ambit of the term "fees for technical services" under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA'). 3. erred ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the payments made by the assessee for remittances are in the nature of fee for technical services and are liable for deduction of tax @10% as confirmed by the AO in order passed u/s 195(2) of the Act. Further

DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ac Nielsen Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 162/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254

duly submitted by ACNielsen. The DDIT called upon ACNielsen to show cause as to why not the said receipts be treated as „Royalty/ Fees for technical services‟ as per Indo-USA Tax Treaty and be subjected to tax in India. ACNielsen vide its letters dated 19 November

DCIT (It)- 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ac Nielsen Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 161/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254

duly submitted by ACNielsen. The DDIT called upon ACNielsen to show cause as to why not the said receipts be treated as „Royalty/ Fees for technical services‟ as per Indo-USA Tax Treaty and be subjected to tax in India. ACNielsen vide its letters dated 19 November

DCIT 9It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ac Nielsen Corporationcorporation, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 160/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254

duly submitted by ACNielsen. The DDIT called upon ACNielsen to show cause as to why not the said receipts be treated as „Royalty/ Fees for technical services‟ as per Indo-USA Tax Treaty and be subjected to tax in India. ACNielsen vide its letters dated 19 November

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1691/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

erred in holding that the payment made by the appellant to BASF SE is payment in the nature of fees for technical services, by merely relying on his earlier orders, which have not attained finality. 4) The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the payment is made by the appellant ... 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

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1690/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

erred in holding that the payment made by the appellant to BASF SE is payment in the nature of fees for technical services, by merely relying on his earlier orders, which have not attained finality. 4) The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the payment is made by the appellant ... 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

Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3122/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

erred in holding that the payment made by the appellant to BASF SE is payment in the nature of fees for technical services, by merely relying on his earlier orders, which have not attained finality. 4) The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the payment is made by the appellant ... 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

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

erred in holding that the payment made by the appellant to BASF SE is payment in the nature of fees for technical services, by merely relying on his earlier orders, which have not attained finality. 4) The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the payment is made by the appellant ... 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

DCIT(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result Ground No. 1(c) raised by the revenue is also dismissed

ITA 563/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shriaby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit (Tds)-2(3), Room No. 718, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. ...... Appellant Vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aabct3784C ..... Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair- Cit (Dr) Respondent By : Sh. Hiten Chande Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-60, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 30.11.2018 Passed Under Section 201(1) / 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita Nair- CIT (DR)For Respondent: Sh. Hiten Chande
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

Section 1943 of the Act requires deduction of tax at source on the following payments made- (a) fees for professional services, of (b) 'fees for technical services', or (c) royalty, or (d) any sum referred to in clause (va) of section 28. By attending board meetings, a director does ... sitting fees. Accordingly, sitting fees paid to a director would not fall within the purview of fees for professional services. As regards, fee for technical services (FTS), explanation (b) to section 194) read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) defines 'fees for technical services’ as follows

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2508/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

relied on certain judicial decisions. The Ld. AR submitted that even if the payments as made to foreign entities are considered as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ even then the assessee could not be fastened with obligation of tax deduction at source (TDS) by way of retrospective amendment as brought ... have any permanent establishment or presence in India. However, invoking explanation to Sec.9(1)(vii), Ld. AO held that the payment would constitute fees for technical services and taxable in India. 4. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) merely concurred with the submissions of Ld. AO and upheld the disallowances

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2507/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

relied on certain judicial decisions. The Ld. AR submitted that even if the payments as made to foreign entities are considered as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ even then the assessee could not be fastened with obligation of tax deduction at source (TDS) by way of retrospective amendment as brought ... have any permanent establishment or presence in India. However, invoking explanation to Sec.9(1)(vii), Ld. AO held that the payment would constitute fees for technical services and taxable in India. 4. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) merely concurred with the submissions of Ld. AO and upheld the disallowances

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2506/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

relied on certain judicial decisions. The Ld. AR submitted that even if the payments as made to foreign entities are considered as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ even then the assessee could not be fastened with obligation of tax deduction at source (TDS) by way of retrospective amendment as brought ... have any permanent establishment or presence in India. However, invoking explanation to Sec.9(1)(vii), Ld. AO held that the payment would constitute fees for technical services and taxable in India. 4. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) merely concurred with the submissions of Ld. AO and upheld the disallowances

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2505/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

relied on certain judicial decisions. The Ld. AR submitted that even if the payments as made to foreign entities are considered as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ even then the assessee could not be fastened with obligation of tax deduction at source (TDS) by way of retrospective amendment as brought ... have any permanent establishment or presence in India. However, invoking explanation to Sec.9(1)(vii), Ld. AO held that the payment would constitute fees for technical services and taxable in India. 4. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) merely concurred with the submissions of Ld. AO and upheld the disallowances

Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2091/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1962 could not change tax withholding liability with retrospective effect. Another submission was that such payments do not constitute Fees for Technical Services and therefore, no TDS would be required on such payments. 3.3 However, the arguments were rejected since the assessee did not produce

M/S. the Mathworks, Inc, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 364/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.364/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 M/S.The Mathworks, Inc. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick Income-Tax, V. Massachusetts 01760 International Taxation Cir.2(2) Bengaluru. United Sates Of America Pan : Aafct7230H. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Kurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karhihalli, CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), (ii) fees for included services (FIS) as per Article 12 of the DTAA and Fees for Technical Services (FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act. The assessee filed objections to the proposed addition. However, the A.O. rejected the assessee’s contentions ... royalty as per Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. (Tax effect : 8,43,95,067) Treating income earned by assessee for rendering maintenance service as Fee for Technical Services in India 4. The learned AO erred in treating the receipts of INR 408,881,074 towards maintenance services as Fee for Technical

Dy CIT (Int.Tax)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 762/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.762 & 761/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy Cit(Int.Tax)-2(1)(1) M/S. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Room No. 1713, 17Th बिधम/ 1. Raffles Link, 03/04-01, Floor, Air India Building, Vs. South Lobby, Singapore, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Foreign, Singapore 400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccc7328N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik Poddar/Harsh Shah, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 25.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C For Ay 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik
Section 143(3)

other than FII related transactions in securities. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that commission paid to assessee cannot be treated as fees for technical services as the assessee is getting a fixed ratio of commission on quarterly basis for rendering the services. The Assessing Officer further held that ... learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 29/07/2019 upheld the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the offshore distribution income is not fees for technical services. The learned CIT(A) further held that offshore distribution income earned by the assessee is in the nature of business income

Dy CIT-(Int-Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 761/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.762 & 761/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy Cit(Int.Tax)-2(1)(1) M/S. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Room No. 1713, 17Th बिधम/ 1. Raffles Link, 03/04-01, Floor, Air India Building, Vs. South Lobby, Singapore, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Foreign, Singapore 400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccc7328N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik Poddar/Harsh Shah, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 25.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C For Ay 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik
Section 143(3)

other than FII related transactions in securities. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that commission paid to assessee cannot be treated as fees for technical services as the assessee is getting a fixed ratio of commission on quarterly basis for rendering the services. The Assessing Officer further held that ... learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 29/07/2019 upheld the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the offshore distribution income is not fees for technical services. The learned CIT(A) further held that offshore distribution income earned by the assessee is in the nature of business income