← 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. 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 987/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

that income arising due to payments for the services mentioned in section 5(2) of the Act would come under the ambit of “fees for technical services” as described in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the payments made to non-residents in this case is chargeable ... ensuing paragraphs. 11. The ld. AR submitted that the fees paid by the assessee towards training does not fall 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

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

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 ... present appeal is, whether the payment of Rs.250,20,50,998, received by the assessee for Information Technology („IT‟) support services constitutes Fee for Technical Services / Royalty under the provisions of the Act as well as under Article–12 of the India– Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA

DCIT (It) 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Globalcom.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2319/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Amit Khatiwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

that the amount received by the assessee from Tata Communications Ltd. (erstwhile VSNL) as 'standby maintenance charges was not in the nature of 'Fees for technical services' under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fundamental fact that the act of maintenance of infrastructure ... concluding that the amount received by assessee from Tata Communications Ltd (erstwhile VSNL) as standby maintenance charges was not in nature of 'Fee for technical services' under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that as per the provisions of said section, any payment made

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

reported in (2005) 144 taxman 492; 13. The Ld.AR submitted that, payments to the assessee under the secondment agreement, cannot be treated as 'fees for technical services.' It was submitted that ‘India Recharge and Cost Allocation” Agreement’, dated 03/03/2006, entered by the assessee with overseas entity, for secondment of staff ... salary' and consequently the reimbursements made to overseas entity, under the India Recharge & Cost Allocation Agreement dated 03/03/2006, cannot be considered as 'fees for technical services', either under the Act, or under the India US DTAA, and consequently, the said reimbursements are not liable for TDS u/s.195

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

reported in (2005) 144 taxman 492; 13. The Ld.AR submitted that, payments to the assessee under the secondment agreement, cannot be treated as 'fees for technical services.' It was submitted that ‘India Recharge and Cost Allocation” Agreement’, dated 03/03/2006, entered by the assessee with overseas entity, for secondment of staff ... salary' and consequently the reimbursements made to overseas entity, under the India Recharge & Cost Allocation Agreement dated 03/03/2006, cannot be considered as 'fees for technical services', either under the Act, or under the India US DTAA, and consequently, the said reimbursements are not liable for TDS u/s.195

M/S Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

reported in (2005) 144 taxman 492; 13. The Ld.AR submitted that, payments to the assessee under the secondment agreement, cannot be treated as 'fees for technical services.' It was submitted that ‘India Recharge and Cost Allocation” Agreement’, dated 03/03/2006, entered by the assessee with overseas entity, for secondment of staff ... salary' and consequently the reimbursements made to overseas entity, under the India Recharge & Cost Allocation Agreement dated 03/03/2006, cannot be considered as 'fees for technical services', either under the Act, or under the India US DTAA, and consequently, the said reimbursements are not liable for TDS u/s.195

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 366/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

reported in (2005) 144 taxman 492; 13. The Ld.AR submitted that, payments to the assessee under the secondment agreement, cannot be treated as 'fees for technical services.' It was submitted that ‘India Recharge and Cost Allocation” Agreement’, dated 03/03/2006, entered by the assessee with overseas entity, for secondment of staff ... salary' and consequently the reimbursements made to overseas entity, under the India Recharge & Cost Allocation Agreement dated 03/03/2006, cannot be considered as 'fees for technical services', either under the Act, or under the India US DTAA, and consequently, the said reimbursements are not liable for TDS u/s.195

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 365/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

reported in (2005) 144 taxman 492; 13. The Ld.AR submitted that, payments to the assessee under the secondment agreement, cannot be treated as 'fees for technical services.' It was submitted that ‘India Recharge and Cost Allocation” Agreement’, dated 03/03/2006, entered by the assessee with overseas entity, for secondment of staff ... salary' and consequently the reimbursements made to overseas entity, under the India Recharge & Cost Allocation Agreement dated 03/03/2006, cannot be considered as 'fees for technical services', either under the Act, or under the India US DTAA, and consequently, the said reimbursements are not liable for TDS u/s.195

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

reported in (2005) 144 taxman 492; 13. The Ld.AR submitted that, payments to the assessee under the secondment agreement, cannot be treated as 'fees for technical services.' It was submitted that ‘India Recharge and Cost Allocation” Agreement’, dated 03/03/2006, entered by the assessee with overseas entity, for secondment of staff ... salary' and consequently the reimbursements made to overseas entity, under the India Recharge & Cost Allocation Agreement dated 03/03/2006, cannot be considered as 'fees for technical services', either under the Act, or under the India US DTAA, and consequently, the said reimbursements are not liable for TDS u/s.195

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 363/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

reported in (2005) 144 taxman 492; 13. The Ld.AR submitted that, payments to the assessee under the secondment agreement, cannot be treated as 'fees for technical services.' It was submitted that ‘India Recharge and Cost Allocation” Agreement’, dated 03/03/2006, entered by the assessee with overseas entity, for secondment of staff ... salary' and consequently the reimbursements made to overseas entity, under the India Recharge & Cost Allocation Agreement dated 03/03/2006, cannot be considered as 'fees for technical services', either under the Act, or under the India US DTAA, and consequently, the said reimbursements are not liable for TDS u/s.195

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

reported in (2005) 144 taxman 492; 13. The Ld.AR submitted that, payments to the assessee under the secondment agreement, cannot be treated as 'fees for technical services.' It was submitted that ‘India Recharge and Cost Allocation” Agreement’, dated 03/03/2006, entered by the assessee with overseas entity, for secondment of staff ... salary' and consequently the reimbursements made to overseas entity, under the India Recharge & Cost Allocation Agreement dated 03/03/2006, cannot be considered as 'fees for technical services', either under the Act, or under the India US DTAA, and consequently, the said reimbursements are not liable for TDS u/s.195

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

knowledge, skill, know how to the appellant under Article 12 of India - UK tax treaty and hence is not in the nature of fees for technical services as per aforesaid Article. 2.4 Service not taxable under Act in AY 09-10 as it is not both rendered & utilized in India ... this light let us also examine the Article 13 of India UK DTAA. Clause (4) of Article 13 construe “fee for technical services” under the India UK DTAA: “4. For the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Article, and subject to paragraph 5 of this Article, the term fees

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Private Limited'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2129/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

source. b. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in concluding that web hosting charges paid is in the nature of fees for technical service (-FTS") under the India — USA and India - Australia Double Tax Avoidance Agreement treaty ("tax treaty"). c. The learned CIT(A) has erred ... adjudicating the fact that the web hosting services do not involve 'human intervention' and accordingly cannot be considered as fees for technical service. d. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO ought to have appreciated that the web hosting services also does not make available technical knowledge, skill, know

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Pvt Ltd'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 1851/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

source. b. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in concluding that web hosting charges paid is in the nature of fees for technical service (-FTS") under the India — USA and India - Australia Double Tax Avoidance Agreement treaty ("tax treaty"). c. The learned CIT(A) has erred ... adjudicating the fact that the web hosting services do not involve 'human intervention' and accordingly cannot be considered as fees for technical service. d. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO ought to have appreciated that the web hosting services also does not make available technical knowledge, skill, know

M/S Adc India Communications Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 79/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

applicable to the management service fees without appreciating the fact that the payments fall within the ambit of "fees for technical services" as defined in Section 9( l)(vii) of the I.T. Act. 6.The DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that the jurisdictional High Court's decision ... submitted that management fees amounting to Rs.1,36,42,976 paid by the assessee to foreign entity is liable for tax as “fees for technical services” u/s 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act and having failed to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the I.T.Act, the expenditure cannot

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Adc India Communications Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

applicable to the management service fees without appreciating the fact that the payments fall within the ambit of "fees for technical services" as defined in Section 9( l)(vii) of the I.T. Act. 6.The DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that the jurisdictional High Court's decision ... submitted that management fees amounting to Rs.1,36,42,976 paid by the assessee to foreign entity is liable for tax as “fees for technical services” u/s 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act and having failed to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the I.T.Act, the expenditure cannot

M/S Irunway India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Irunway India Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. Regus Business Center, Office Circle – 3(1)(1), No.1015, Bengaluru. 10Th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 003. Pan : Aabci 5613 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37Section 40

return of income by the assessee: (i) Outsourcing charges of Rs. 71,110,315 payable to iRunway Inc 'were treated as 'fees for technical services' r FTS1 and disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act by alleging that the Assessee had not deducted ... alleged non-deduction of tax at source. The assessee took a stand that the said charges did not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS) under the Act as well as 'Fees for Included Services' [FIS] under the India-US Tax Treaty, and therefore did not constitute 'sum chargeable

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

alleging that the amount received by assessee cannot be considered neither to be ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(v) r.w.Expl. 5 & 6, nor Fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) or the Act. It submitted that even as per the DTAA the amount cannot be taxable unless there ... vide application dated 16/11/2021, raising following issue: Additional ground of appeal:- “1. That the payments received by the assessee cannot be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as within the meaning of Article

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

covered by any of the deeming provisions u/s.9 of the Act and the same is not in the nature of interest, royalty, fees for technical services etc., Accordingly, it was pleaded that the payment of commission to non-resident agents are not chargeable to tax in India u/s.5 r.w.s

Hermes Maritime Services P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4208/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Hermes Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. 1001/1002, Great Eastern Summit-B, Plot No. 66, Sector-15, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614 Pan: Aabch4865Q ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-15(2) (1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajen Damani Respondent By : Sh. Milind S. Chavan Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajen DamaniFor Respondent: Sh. Milind S. Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40

section 36(1) (ii) of the Act. In addition to this ld. AO examined the AIR statement. As per AIR statement, assessee/appellant paid fees for technical services to a foreign party in China amounting to Rs. 7, 54,518/-. The Ld. AO held that as the assessee was liable ... Accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such period. d. Since the payment for fees for technical services is paid from India to a non- resident in China, therefore there is no question of income received or deemed to be received