← 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

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-13, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3830/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 263Section 40Section 9

resident. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has given specific task of advertisement banner to the Facebook Ireland. The element of fees for technical services is determined if there is any technical aspect involved by providing services by the company from whom the services are rendered ... which clearly indicates that the Facebook Ireland will provide platform banner for advertisement to the assessee-company. Thus there is no element of fees for technical services or royalty is involved in this case. Thus, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has totally ignored the actual fact

DCIT (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marubeni Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection appeal is allowed

ITA 11/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)

also the clients of the assessee in India with whom contracts were executed through the Permanent Establishment in India and assessee has received fees for technical services in previous year from them" 4. "The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above ground ... income from its India operations- income from its permanent establishment in India (Rs 8,47,64,383), income earned from India as fees from technical services (Rs 31,76,15,635), income from shipping business (Rs 1,09,53,179) and income from interest on suppliers‟ credit

DCIT (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marubeni Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 10/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Japan. It Has Various Streams Of Income From Its India Operations- Income From Its Permanent Establishment In India (Rs 8,47,64,383), Income Earned From India As Fees From Technical Services (Rs 31,76,15,635), Income From Shipping Business (Rs 1,09,53,179) And

Section 143(3)

income from its India operations- income from its permanent establishment in India (Rs 8,47,64,383), income earned from India as fees from technical services (Rs 31,76,15,635), income from shipping business (Rs 1,09,53,179) and ITA No.: 10 /Mum/22 Assessment years: 2016-17 Page ... also the clients of the assessee in India with whom contracts were executed through the Permanent Establishment in India and assessee has received fees for technical services in a previous year from them. 3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts

ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2549/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Jangid, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 40Section 90

assessee to 2 its associate concerns based in countries apart from Philippines, United Kingdom constitute payments for Independent Personal Service instead of ‘Fees for Technical Services” as defined under Article 12/13 of the respective DTAAs? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... services provided by these entities make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. to the assessee and accordingly falls under the ambit of ‘Fees for Technical Services’ under Article 12/13 of the respective DTAAs. 3.6 Once the payments are held to be in the nature of ‘Fees for Technical Services’, there

M/S. Essity Hygiene and Health Ab, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 778/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.778/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) M/S. Essity Hygiene & Health Ab, C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp, Urmi Axis, 6Th Floor, Famous Studio Lane, Dr.E.Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. Pan: Aatcs-0899-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- (International Taxation)- 4(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No.1708, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Milind S. Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan
Section 143(3)

year 2017-18. 2 2. The assessee in appeal has raised four grounds assailing adjustments as under:- (I) Taxability of consultancy services as Fees for Technical Services (FTS). (II) Taxability of SAP Licence Charges as Royalty. (III)Taxability of IT Support services as FTS/Royalty (iv)Taxability of reimbursement of expenses ... cost it had incurred for providing managerial services. The Assessing Officer had erred in holding receipts in respect of providing consultancy services as Fee for Technical Services (FTS). The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that addition on account of receipts for consultancy services as FTS was raised in assessment

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

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2015–16

ITA 7262/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 250

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

DCIT(It)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2015–16

ITA 6098/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 250

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

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 13, Mumbai

ITA 3600/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 163Section 263Section 40

resident. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has given specific task of advertisement banner to the Facebook Ireland. The element of fees for technical services is determined if there is any technical aspect involved by providing services by the company from whom the services are rendered ... which clearly indicates that the Facebook Ireland will provide platform banner for advertisement to the assessee-company. Thus there is no element of fees for technical services or royalty is involved in this case. Thus, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has totally ignored the actual fact

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

amount paid by the assessee cannot be considered neither to be ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) r.w. Expl. 5 & 6, nor Fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) or the Act. The assessee submitted on following prepositions in respect of the payments made to J& P Coats ... held that, in case the claim of assessee is considered that it is providing service, the same will become taxable under the head ‘Fees for technical serviced’. 2.23 The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte.Ltd

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

amount paid by the assessee cannot be considered neither to be ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) r.w. Expl. 5 & 6, nor Fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) or the Act. The assessee submitted on following prepositions in respect of the payments made to J& P Coats ... held that, in case the claim of assessee is considered that it is providing service, the same will become taxable under the head ‘Fees for technical serviced’. 2.23 The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte.Ltd

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

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

provided outside India and the said services were consumed outside India. It was also contended that the said services cannot be considered as “Fee for Technical Services” or “Fee for included Services”. It also relied upon Article 15 of India – USA DTAA and contended that the services provided by individual ... India as such provisions of Section 9 of the Act were not attracted. However, the Ld CIT(A) held that the fees for technical services payable to a resident in India would be income 17 M/s Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. deemed to arise in India except where

Mwh Uk Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6619/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Mwh Uk Ltd. Dcit (It)-3(2)(2) India Bulls Finance Centre, Mumbai Tower-3, 28Th Floor, Elphinstone Mills Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 013

submitted a chart wherein he submitted that ground no.1 in all these appeals relates to taxation of fees received for services rendered as fees for technical services. In this regard, he referred to ITA No. 6619/Mum/2017 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in the case of MWH UK Ltd. (Stantec ... Corporate planning and development; • Corporate legal services and risk management; • Corporate human resource management; • Global professional indemnity insurance; • Global IT Networks The term “fees for technical service” under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA is defined as under – the relevant extract of the said definition

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

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 254/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee stating that the services provided by the seconded employee is in the nature of fees for technical services (FTS) defined in explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) and hence tax need to be deducted at source. The assessing officer relied ... that there is no technical knowledge ‘made available’ to the assessee on behalf of Cerner Corporation and hence cannot be held to be Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of India USA DTAA. The learned AR submitted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1073/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

Shipping and Air Transport) from activities described in paragraph 2(c) or 3 of Article 8. Indo-UKDTAA ARTICLE 13 -Royalties and fees for technical services - 1. Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State ... taxed in that other State. 2. However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the law of that State; but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1071/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

Shipping and Air Transport) from activities described in paragraph 2(c) or 3 of Article 8. Indo-UKDTAA ARTICLE 13 -Royalties and fees for technical services - 1. Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State ... taxed in that other State. 2. However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the law of that State; but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1070/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

Shipping and Air Transport) from activities described in paragraph 2(c) or 3 of Article 8. Indo-UKDTAA ARTICLE 13 -Royalties and fees for technical services - 1. Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State ... taxed in that other State. 2. However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the law of that State; but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1069/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

Shipping and Air Transport) from activities described in paragraph 2(c) or 3 of Article 8. Indo-UKDTAA ARTICLE 13 -Royalties and fees for technical services - 1. Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State ... taxed in that other State. 2. However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the law of that State; but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1066/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

Shipping and Air Transport) from activities described in paragraph 2(c) or 3 of Article 8. Indo-UKDTAA ARTICLE 13 -Royalties and fees for technical services - 1. Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State ... taxed in that other State. 2. However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the law of that State; but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1065/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

Shipping and Air Transport) from activities described in paragraph 2(c) or 3 of Article 8. Indo-UKDTAA ARTICLE 13 -Royalties and fees for technical services - 1. Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State ... taxed in that other State. 2. However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the law of that State; but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 988/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

However, the CIT(Appeals) held that income arising due to payments for the services mentioned would come under the ambit of “fees for technical services” as described in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The nature of remittance as per Form 15CB is ‘training charges’. According ... support and training charges also. Therefore the ld.AR submitted that the payment does not fall Page 8 of 12 under the purview of ‘fees for technical services’ under Article 12 of the DTAA between India and USA as there is no technical knowledge made available by the payee