← 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

Geetha Pundaleeka, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1397/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— Page 5 of 13 "(ia)any interest, commission or brokerage, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply ... existing provisions of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 40, failure to make deduction at source from payment of interest, royalty, fees for technical services or any other sum which is payable outside India, or in India to a non-resident or to a foreign company or failure

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) -1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 951/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Buro Happold Ltd Vs. Dcit (It) – 1(3)(2) C/O. Urmi Axis, 6Th 1810, 18Th Floor, Air Floor, Famous Studio India Bldg, Lane, Dr. Emoses Road, Narimanpoint,Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 021. 400011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb9239Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 234B

Dispute Resolution Panel') and DCIT have erred in considering income from consulting and engineering services amounting to INR 4,20,666/- as Fees for technical services ('FTS') as per Article 13 of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 2. Ground No. II - Taxability of amount received as common cost ... recharge as Royalty and Fees for technical services (FTS) 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP ('Dispute Resolution Panel') and DCII have erred in considering common cost recharge amounting to INR 4,39,80,878/- as Royalty and Fees

Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, all Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6295/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) was justified in holding that interconnection usages charges (IUC) is not in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and hence not liable for TDS under section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (2) Whether on the facts ... manual intervention, is one of the points which requires expert evidence. It is a settled position that the services would qualify as fees for technical services only if human intervention is involved in rendition of the services. This aspect has been examined by various Courts and tribunals and they have

Dy. CIT (TDS)-2 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6242/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) was justified in holding that interconnection usages charges (IUC) is not in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and hence not liable for TDS under section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (2) Whether on the facts ... manual intervention, is one of the points which requires expert evidence. It is a settled position that the services would qualify as fees for technical services only if human intervention is involved in rendition of the services. This aspect has been examined by various Courts and tribunals and they have

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

appreciating that the services in question were provided for the export business of the service recipient and therefore not liable to tax as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.  The learned AO and Hon'ble DRP has erred in not recognizing that payments ... comparing the sales and marketing services offered by the Appellant to a secondment arrangement and therefore erred in holding the receipts as Fees for Technical Services.  The learned AO and Hon'ble DRP has failed to appreciate that the sum of INR 72,68,226 includes re-imbursements of expenses

M/S.Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 364/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Synamedia Ltd. [Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited’], The Assistant C/O. M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, International Survey No. 51-64/4, Taxation, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 1(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aabcn2524L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021

For Appellant: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

erred in law and in fact, in treating the receipts on account of rendering of support services to be in the nature of 'Fees for Technical Services' (`FTS') as defined under the provisions of the Act read with the DTAA. 4. The learned AO has erred ... Treatment of receipts on account of provision of support services to be in the nature of ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (‘FTS’) amounting to Rs. 1,16,08,302/- which were received in respect of rendering of support services in relation to software / hardware supplied to customers. Page

M/S Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3158/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

services provided by foreign agents are in the nature of managerial, technical and consultancy services and they would fall under the category of “Fee for Technical Services”. Hence the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from these payments. For arriving at this conclusion ... procuring Visa, lodging, boarding, travel and other logistics requirements. The Ld A.R submitted that these services will not fall under the category of Fee for technical services. He submitted that the income did not accrue in India in the hands of these foreign agents and hence there is no requirement

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3157/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

services provided by foreign agents are in the nature of managerial, technical and consultancy services and they would fall under the category of “Fee for Technical Services”. Hence the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from these payments. For arriving at this conclusion ... procuring Visa, lodging, boarding, travel and other logistics requirements. The Ld A.R submitted that these services will not fall under the category of Fee for technical services. He submitted that the income did not accrue in India in the hands of these foreign agents and hence there is no requirement

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3156/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

services provided by foreign agents are in the nature of managerial, technical and consultancy services and they would fall under the category of “Fee for Technical Services”. Hence the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from these payments. For arriving at this conclusion ... procuring Visa, lodging, boarding, travel and other logistics requirements. The Ld A.R submitted that these services will not fall under the category of Fee for technical services. He submitted that the income did not accrue in India in the hands of these foreign agents and hence there is no requirement

M/S Moonfrog Labs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3066/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Moonfrog Labs Pvt. Ltd., 16/3, Level-3, The Assistant Adarsh Yellavarthy Centre, Commissioner Of Cambridge Road, Income Tax, Ulsoor Jogupalya, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore – 560008. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaicm9563H Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh .K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore (`A0') Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeals)-4 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

source under section 195. 2.2. The learned AO has erred in concluding that the impugned payments were in the nature of Fees for technical services / Royalty under the Act and DTAA. 2.3. The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the impugned payments were in the nature of `Royalty ... equipment under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act whether active or passive and hence ‘Royalty’ under the Act. As regards taxability as “Fees for technical services”, it was held by the Ld.CIT(A) that since the process is automated and there is no human intervention, the payments

Chander Mohan Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 40A(2)

attract the provisions of section 195 of the Act. Proceeding further, he submitted, the payments are not in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS), hence, cannot be considered to be income chargeable to tax in India. Drawing our attention to section

Faber Castell Aktiengesellschaft, Germany vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7619/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

which, vide letter dated 26.10.2016 reads as under: 11 18. Coming to Article 12 of India Germany DTAA under the head ‘Royalties and Fees for Technical Services’, which reads as under: “ARTICLE 12 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 may be 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 laws of that State

DCIT, Circle- 2, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6172/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Narendra Singh J., CIT DR
Section 44BSection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

service relating to post-stack inversion study, core pressure and well-bore study, data processing and maintenance services are in the nature of fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act wherein the appellant submits that the activities are inextricably linked with the oil and gas exploration ... assessee is as below: • Activities are in the nature of ‘mining or like project’ and thus not in the nature of ‘fees for technical services. The services provided by the appellant, were used in the exploration/exploitation of mineral oils. • The Ld. AO has not given any reasoning for excluding such

Hero Moto Corp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, Delhi

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

aforesaid payments were made after deducting tax at source @10% being the rate of tax applicable in relation to payment of royalty and fees for technical services under Article 12 of Indo-Japan DTAA. 60. In the assessment order, the AO treated the aforesaid expenditure incurred by way of royalty

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2)(2), New Delhi vs. Datamine International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6383/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6383/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Datamine International Ltd., International Taxation, (Now Cae Datamine International Circle-1(2)(2), Ltd.), A-41, Ground Floor, Mohan New Delhi Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd7600A Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : None Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.11.2021

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: None
Section 9(1)(vi)

should have been taxed. 4. However, the AO treated the receipts from supply of software as royalty income and the export services as Fee for Technical Services with the following observations: 4 Datamine International Ltd. "On the basis of the above, it is clear that the assessee's receipts from ... received by the company should be brought to tax on gross basis of taxation. Further, the export services provided by company qualify as Fee for Technical Services (FTS). Therefore, amount of Rs. 2,74,16,326/- is to be taxed @ 10% on gross basis." 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal

Itochu Corporation, Japan vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7615/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 360/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) A N D I.T.A. No. 7615/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Itochu Corporation, Acit, 5–1, Kita-Aoyama, Vs. (International Taxation) 2–Chome, Minato-Ku Circle 2(1)(1), Tokyo 107-8077, Japan. New Delhi. Pan: Aabci5567L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT]–DR

year under consideration assessee earned fee amounting to Rs.1,80,78,892/- for rendering certain services and offered the same for taxation as fee for technical services. The Assessing Officer vide letter dated 27.01.2016 asked the assessee to produce details of all types of sales made in India during ... service fee amounting to Rs.1,80,78,892/- from Itochu India and other third parties and the same was offered to tax as fee for technical service under Article 12 to India-Japan DTAA on gross basis at 10%. The taxes due were duly discharged by way of taxes withheld

Itochu Corporation, Japan vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 360/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 360/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) A N D I.T.A. No. 7615/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Itochu Corporation, Acit, 5–1, Kita-Aoyama, Vs. (International Taxation) 2–Chome, Minato-Ku Circle 2(1)(1), Tokyo 107-8077, Japan. New Delhi. Pan: Aabci5567L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT]–DR

year under consideration assessee earned fee amounting to Rs.1,80,78,892/- for rendering certain services and offered the same for taxation as fee for technical services. The Assessing Officer vide letter dated 27.01.2016 asked the assessee to produce details of all types of sales made in India during ... service fee amounting to Rs.1,80,78,892/- from Itochu India and other third parties and the same was offered to tax as fee for technical service under Article 12 to India-Japan DTAA on gross basis at 10%. The taxes due were duly discharged by way of taxes withheld

M/S. Bain & Company India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS) (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2845/DEL/2016[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr. DR

facts, there is no dispute that the services were rendered outside India and, therefore, the payments for the services could not qualify as ‘Fee for Technical Services.’ 9 He submitted that the above proposition was amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1st June, 1976. Referring to various decisions ... Bain India. Referring to the order of the CIT(A), he submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in treating the services as ‘fee for technical services’ without appreciating that the services do not satisfy ‘make available’ clause which is a sine qua non for holding the payments

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 889/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd. and other judgments have laid down that segregation of international transaction of payment of royalty and fees for technical services is justified as these are not linked with import of raw material etc. Thus, he submitted that royalty cannot be aggregated with other

Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 279/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd. and other judgments have laid down that segregation of international transaction of payment of royalty and fees for technical services is justified as these are not linked with import of raw material etc. Thus, he submitted that royalty cannot be aggregated with other