← 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. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

circumstances of the case, the Learned AO and the Learned Panel erred in treating the said payment to be in the nature of ‘fees for technical services’ (FTS). IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 4 of 92 5.1.4 That on the facts ... circumstances of the case, the Learned AO and the Learned Panel erred in treating the said payment to be in the nature of ‘fees for technical services’ (FTS). 5.1.4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO and the Learned Panel erred in ignoring

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse Ag, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

interconnected issue involved therein is as to whether the said fee is taxable in India as fee for technical services u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a company incorporated in Switzerland ... legal provisions of the Act and submitted that the referral fees received by the CSDB does not become taxable in India even as fee for technical services (FTS) u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Act or under the respective treaty provisions. The assessee also placed reliance on various decisions in support

M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited (Formerly Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2387/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 40

Assessee is not satisfactory. The Ld. DRP upheld the disallowance made. In order for the payments to be in the nature of fees for technical services, in terms of Article 12(3)(b) of the India- Korea DTAA, the payments ought to be in consideration for technical, managerial or consultancy ... materials available on record. In our opinion, in this case, AO treated the payment of professional charges to Home Plus Company Ltd. as fees for technical services. In the present case, the payment has been made towards training services and the training services cannot be treated as technical, managerial

M/S Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2898/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 40

Assessee is not satisfactory. The Ld. DRP upheld the disallowance made. In order for the payments to be in the nature of fees for technical services, in terms of Article 12(3)(b) of the India- Korea DTAA, the payments ought to be in consideration for technical, managerial or consultancy ... materials available on record. In our opinion, in this case, AO treated the payment of professional charges to Home Plus Company Ltd. as fees for technical services. In the present case, the payment has been made towards training services and the training services cannot be treated as technical, managerial

Red Hat India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5831/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5831/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5833/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5834/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, A 201, Supreme Business Park, बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Supreme City, Hiranandani Vs. Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6034/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6036/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6037/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), R. No. 473, Aayakar A 201, Supreme Business बनाम/ Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Park, Supreme City, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddeshFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 9(1)(vi)

said payment is in the nature of „Royalty‟ not only under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) and also ‘Fees for Technical Services‟ u/s 9(1)(vii); but as well as under Article 12 of India-Singapore DTAA. Since the assessee has failed to deduct TDS, as required ... this office to the assessee asking the assessee to detail the reasons as to why the aforesaid payment should not be treated as fees for technical services under Act or DTAA, I have not discussed the same at this point of time. 6.5.8 The assessee has also submitted that

Cerner Healthcare Solutions India Private Limited (Erstwhile Cerner Healthcare Solution Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 171/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 37Section 40

view that the reimbursement made by the assessee in India to overseas entity. towards the seconded employees cannot be regarded as "Fee For technical Services". Once there is no violation of provision of section 195, assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default under section ... cannot be held to be in default. 26. The Assessing Officer had also raised the issue of payment being in the nature of fees for technical services. However, in the final analysis disallowance has been made in the hands of assessee for non deduction of tax at source

Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As J M Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 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

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2206/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 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

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6875/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

order passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and treated the payments as fees for technical services rendered by the non-residents in India. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid payment under section ... payment. On the other hand, the lower authorities did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and treated such payment to be fees for technical services rendered by the non-resident in India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 92D

Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in considering the reimbursements of INR 53,809,953 made to TBC by the Appellant as Fees for Technical Services ('FIS') and consequently disallowing the same under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for alleged failure to withhold taxes under section ... seconded employees. IT(TP)A No.362/Bang/2021 Page 29 of 40 14.17. Article 12(4) of India Japan DTA,A that deals with “Fees for technical services’, as under: “4. The term "fees for technical services" as used in this Article means payments of any amount to any person other than

Air India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 196/MUM/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 133Section 139Section 192Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

AIESL) for repairs / maintenance on which TDS @ 2% was made. The Assessing Officer concluded that the services were in the nature of fees for technical services which are liable for TDS @10% under section and determined Rs.68,64,984/- as shortfall of TDS alongwith interest of Rs.41,18,990/- under ... assessee, the services rendered by AIESL was in the nature of ‘fees for works contract’ and not in the nature of ‘fees for technical services’ as alleged by the Ld.AO. 5. The Ld A.R stated that the recipient of the payment, viz., M/s AIESL has duly offered these payments

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 133Section 139Section 192Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

AIESL) for repairs / maintenance on which TDS @ 2% was made. The Assessing Officer concluded that the services were in the nature of fees for technical services which are liable for TDS @10% under section and determined Rs.68,64,984/- as shortfall of TDS alongwith interest of Rs.41,18,990/- under ... assessee, the services rendered by AIESL was in the nature of ‘fees for works contract’ and not in the nature of ‘fees for technical services’ as alleged by the Ld.AO. 5. The Ld A.R stated that the recipient of the payment, viz., M/s AIESL has duly offered these payments

Air India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 133Section 139Section 192Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

AIESL) for repairs / maintenance on which TDS @ 2% was made. The Assessing Officer concluded that the services were in the nature of fees for technical services which are liable for TDS @10% under section and determined Rs.68,64,984/- as shortfall of TDS alongwith interest of Rs.41,18,990/- under ... assessee, the services rendered by AIESL was in the nature of ‘fees for works contract’ and not in the nature of ‘fees for technical services’ as alleged by the Ld.AO. 5. The Ld A.R stated that the recipient of the payment, viz., M/s AIESL has duly offered these payments

Air India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R. () & Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 133Section 139Section 192Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

AIESL) for repairs / maintenance on which TDS @ 2% was made. The Assessing Officer concluded that the services were in the nature of fees for technical services which are liable for TDS @10% under section and determined Rs.68,64,984/- as shortfall of TDS alongwith interest of Rs.41,18,990/- under ... assessee, the services rendered by AIESL was in the nature of ‘fees for works contract’ and not in the nature of ‘fees for technical services’ as alleged by the Ld.AO. 5. The Ld A.R stated that the recipient of the payment, viz., M/s AIESL has duly offered these payments

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1382/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvan Oord Dredging & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Marine Contractors Bv Income-Tax (International 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Taxation)-4(3)(1) Plaza, 166 Cst Road, 16Th Floor, Air India Kalina, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400098 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaach3500M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: K.C. Kanojiya
Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Appellant as "Royalty" under Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the Netherlands as well as fee for technical services under Article 12(5) of India - Netherlands DTAA, thereby making an addition of Rs 3,85,97,891 to the income of the Appellant ... Appellant do not “make available” any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know- how or processes and hence, is not taxable even as fees for technical services in view of Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. 24. erred in not appreciating that the management service fees received by the Appellant

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1019/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

above submissions assessee contended that the export commission to foreign commission agents for procuring export orders are not in the nature of fees for technical services and as such cannot be subjected to withholding tax by relying on case laws. After considering 3 M/s. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., the submissions ... under the head "Salaries; clause (iv) dealing with 'Dividend; clause (v) with 'Interest; clause (vi) dealing with 'Royalty; and clause (vii) dealing with 'Fees for technical services, have no application the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The amount of commission paid to the non-resident cannot be described

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 217 & 218/Bang/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, The Deputy Wing B, Block H2, Commissioner Of Mountain Ash, Income Tax, Manyata Embassy Circle – 2(1)(1), Business Park, Bangalore. Vs. Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaccc3795R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 28/11/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether The Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Payments Made By The Assessee To M/S Cerner Usa For The Employers Executing Certain Works For The Assessee Company Would Not Amount To Income In The Hands Of M/S Cerner India & No Tds Was Liable To Be Made By Treating

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CA
Section 40Section 92C

payments are treated as reimbursement of expenses, therefore were not income in the hands of non-resident. The assessing officer had treated as "fee for technical services" and as no withholding of taxes were effected on such payments disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. Further stated that ... para 16.1 of his impugned order held that payments made by assessee to Cerner, USA are reimbursement of expenses and cannot be "fees for technical services " (FTS). However he held that the reimbursement is taxable under the provision of the Act. The relevant finding of the CITA() at para

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 217 & 218/Bang/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, The Deputy Wing B, Block H2, Commissioner Of Mountain Ash, Income Tax, Manyata Embassy Circle – 2(1)(1), Business Park, Bangalore. Vs. Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaccc3795R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 28/11/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether The Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Payments Made By The Assessee To M/S Cerner Usa For The Employers Executing Certain Works For The Assessee Company Would Not Amount To Income In The Hands Of M/S Cerner India & No Tds Was Liable To Be Made By Treating

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CA
Section 40Section 92C

payments are treated as reimbursement of expenses, therefore were not income in the hands of non-resident. The assessing officer had treated as "fee for technical services" and as no withholding of taxes were effected on such payments disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. Further stated that ... para 16.1 of his impugned order held that payments made by assessee to Cerner, USA are reimbursement of expenses and cannot be "fees for technical services " (FTS). However he held that the reimbursement is taxable under the provision of the Act. The relevant finding of the CITA() at para

M/S Kennametal Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

ITA 1658/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(3)

learned DRP have erred in law and facts of the case by treating the salary cost of the seconded employees as "Fees for Technical Services" 2. The learned Assessing Officer ("learned AO") and the learned DRP have erred in holding that the seconded employees remained employees of the assessee, totally ... regarding several decisions of the jurisdictional Higher authorities which have held that such salary costs of the seconded employees does not constitute "Fees for Technical Services" 6. The learned Assessing Officer ("learned AO") and the learned DRP have erred in selectively citing certain clauses of the Agreement without considering

Internaitonal Hotel Licensing Company Sarl, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2951/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Paras Salva a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the IMPPA receipts are taxable as fees for technical services". 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the marketing ... services and therefore, the amounts received by the assessee from the Indian hotel owner under the IMPPA would be taxable in India as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 28/02/2019, dismissed the appeal filed