“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

Hal Offshore Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2084/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1)

that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law by holding that payment made by the assessee was in the nature of fee for technical services. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming ... sale of spare parts, therefore, whole of the contract partakes the character of work contract. The payment were not covered under Fees For Technical Services as defined in Section 9(1) (vii) of Article 12 of the DTAA as the work carried out was specifically fell under Article 7, leading

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 343 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम The DCIT H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh Circle 1(1), Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACO4024H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 988 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh The DCIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

that "It is therefore clear from the contract that the payment which is being made in the name of the commission, expenses actually fees for technical services. All the services provided by the foreign entities are based upon their expertise and the customer data. The assessee has utilized these services ... case as none of the payments were in nature of salary, dividend, interest or royalty. Section 9(vii) defines income by way of fees for technical service. The nature of services as stated by the appellant was in the nature of commission for facilitating sale. These wouldn't fall

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow vs. M/S. Prayagraj Power Generation Company Ltd., Noida

In the result, ground no. 1 of appeal is dismissed and ground no

ITA 393/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115J

assessee, being a foreign company, from,— (A) the capital gains arising on transactions in securities; or (B) the interest, dividend, royalty or fees for technical services chargeable to tax at the rate or rates specified in Chapter XII, if the income-tax payable thereon in accordance with the provisions ... assessee, being a foreign company, from,— (A) the capital gains arising on transactions in securities; or (B) the interest, dividend, royalty or fees for technical services chargeable to tax at the rate or rates specified in Chapter XII, if such income is credited to the statement of profit and loss

Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions Ag, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarthyssenkrupp Industrial V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Solutions Ag बनाम Income Tax,Transfer Pricing C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A- Circle – 4(2)(2), Air India D, Vandhna Building, 11 Building, Nariman Point, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – Mumbai–400021, Maharashtra 110 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp5301B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. J.Amalsadwala,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)

Section 271GSection 273BSection 92DSection 92D(1)Section 92D(3)

year declaring international transactions worth Rs. 11,15,64,739/-. During the year under consideration,it received certain income comprising of fees for technical services and Royalty in terms of Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) between India and Germany and taxed at the rate

M/S. Bekaert Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

infrastructure facilities to its holding company N. V. Bekaert SA, Belgium were taxable as Royalty as well as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) in the hands of N. V. Bekaert SA under the Act as well as India-Belgium Tax Treaty and therefore the assessee should have withheld taxes while ... No.1003/PUN/2017 M/s. Bekaert Industries Private Limited Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, India should limit its taxation on royalties or fees for technical services to a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate or scope provided for in the present agreement on the said items

Site Concepts Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2123/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri K.B. Muralidharan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep S, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 195Section 40

contradicted his own statement wherein he had held that Once the DTAA does not recognize any income as Fees for Technical services or royalty then classification of the said income has to be as per the other provisions of the DTAA"and thus should be treated as business profits ... provisions of DTAA between India and Philippines. 6. The CIT(A) had identified the nature of payment as Fees for Technical Services but reasonedAO findings which were only speculation and thus failed tojustify the applicability of deduction of tax at source. 7. The CIT(A) had failed to follow

Atos Information Technologies Hk Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4708/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah a/w Ms. Tejal Saraf &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9

Learned AO and the Ld. DRP erred in holding that the receipts of Rs.85,63,75,446/- are in the nature of Fees for Technical Services' ("FTS') under Section 9(l)(vii) of the Act as well as under India - Hong Kong DTAA. The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned ... initiation under section 270A of the Act." 3. The substantive grievance of the assessee can be summarized as (i) characterization of income as fees for technical service in respect of payments received from Atos India Private Limited and; (ii) characterization of income as 'royalty' in respect of payments received from

Bmc Software Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 329/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honourable income-tax Appellate Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law." Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties, perused the records. Assessee is Tax Resident of Singapore and it is engaged in selling Software Products to end use customers, including customers in India. It is mentioned in the Assessment Order that Assessee has also provided IT Support and Maintenance Services with reference to such softw

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 274Section 9(1)(vii)

considering the receipts of INR 33,13,39,754 from support and maintenance services rendered in relation to sale as fees for technical services under the India-Singapore DTAA as well as under the Act and liable to tae in India III Other grounds of appeal 1. Initiation of penalty ... Order, the Assessing Officer held that an amount of Rs.33,13,39,754/- received on account of IT Support and Maintenance Services was “fees for technical services” under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with Article 12 of India Singapore DTAA. 3.1 In the Draft Assessment Order, Assessing

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur(CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

same, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee in 15- 02-2025 alleging difference in expenses claimed under the head fees for technical services (FTS) and commission expenditure. Subsequently, another show-cause notice was issued on 18-03-2025 identifying various issues viz. (i) no verification of stock

Hari Krishna Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1858/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

assessee company has debited these expenses in the profit loss account for the period under consideration. The amount remitted are prima facie fees for technical services, which are taxable in the hands of the recipients, as the assessee company is resident Indian company and payees are foreign company ... provisions of the section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee company has paid the fees for technical services which was covered under the section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the TDS and assessee company has failed to deduct

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., Canada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 666/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

addition of INR 2,42,65,46,501 by treating total income received from repair and maintenance services rendered by the Assessee as Fee for technical services ('FTS') Page 3 of 25 ITA Nos. 665,666,620 & 626/DEL/2025 Pratt & Whitney Vs. DCIT under the provisions of the Act without appreciating ... 626/DEL/2025 Pratt & Whitney Vs. DCIT plan or technical design, the same did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') as per the provisions of India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 11. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had also

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., Canada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 665/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

Pratt & Whitney Canada (Sea) Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 626/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

Pratt & Whitney Canada (Sea) Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 620/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

Lummus Technology Heat Transfer B.V, Gurugram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.3741/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2021-22) Lummus Technology Heat Transfer B.V, Second Floor, Infinity Tower B, Dlf Cyber City, Sector 25A, Phase Ii, Gurugram, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabca-9045-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurugram, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haryana 122001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate, Ms. Reema Grewal, Chartered Accountant & Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 06/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.10.2023, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. The Gist Of Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Assailing The Assessment Order Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80G

Counsel for the assessee submits that this issue arises on account of payments made for secondment of employee holding it to be Fee for Technical Services (FTS) by the AO. Consequent to Secondment Agreement dated 27.06.2019, Lummus Technology LLC (Lummus USA) surrendered all its rights as an employer over ... submitted that when their is employee, employer relationship between seconded employee and assessee, reimbursement of salaries paid to the seconded employee is not Fee for Technical Services (FTS). To support his argument he placed reliance on the decision in case of DCIT vs. Flipkart Internet P. Ltd. 171 taxmann.com

Foods and Inns Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4511/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

According to him, once commission and warehousing charges partook the character of consultancy, technical or managerial services, they fell within the ambit of “fees for technical services” and were deemed to accrue in India. He thus concluded that the assessee was a defaulter for not deducting tax under Section ... would classify and cover all incomes as accruing and arising in India which partake the character of payment on account of Fee for Technical Services', which in turn, has been defined to include any payment for rendering of any managerial consultancy services rendered, by the non- resident agent. In view

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India. Receipts from General BSS does not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') 4. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant for providing General BSS constitutes FTS under the Act as well ... vide its order dated 17.01.2012 held that the payments made by SIMPL to the assessee was in the nature of 'fee for technical service as per Article 13 of India-UK DTAA for which SIMPL was liable to withhold taxes as per section 195 of the Act. Parallely the assessee

ACIT(It)1.2.2 Mumbai, Bkc Mumbai vs. Bcd Travel Services Bv, Netherlands

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4240/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, Shri Hardik Nirmal and Ms. Tejal Saraf, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

Further, we refer to Article 12(4) of the India- Netherlands DTAA which defines fees for technical services (FTS) according to which FTS means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for services of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature (including the provisions of such services through technical

ACIT (It) 1.2.2 Mumbai, Bkc vs. Bcd Travel Services Bv, Netherlands

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4219/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, Shri Hardik Nirmal and Ms. Tejal Saraf, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)