← All Phrases

“fees for included services”

International TaxDTAA FTS ArticleDTAA FTS Article385 judgments

The decision most relied on for fees for included services is CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. (346 ITR 467), cited in 371 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on fees for included services

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.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

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.

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.

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.
383 ITR 1 · 2016 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

Fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) can include payments for fully automated services even without direct human interface, as modern technological developments blur the specific human element in such processes.

Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
86 ITD 791 · 2003 · ITAT
154
citing judgments

For services to qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' or 'Fees for Included Services' under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), they must 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or processes to the recipient, enabling them to apply such expertise independently.

EPRSS Prepaid Recharge Services India Pvt.Ltd. v. ITO
100 Taxmann.com 52 · 2018 · Reported
101
citing judgments

Payments made for the use of cloud space do not constitute royalty payments for the purpose of Indian income tax, especially when they relate to accessing standard and automated services rather than acquiring rights to copyrighted material.

Steria (India) Ltd. v. CIT
386 ITR 390 · 2016 · High Court
83
citing judgments

Managerial services are not considered 'fees for included services' under Article 13(4) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, thus payments for such services are not taxable as FTS under the treaty.

Judgments citing fees for included services

Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1432/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

rendered in the context of service tax and hence, not applicable for Income Tax Act to determine whether the payment made is for fees for included services, by holding as under: (viii) The Revenue has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in C.C., C.E. & S.T.-Bangalore (Adjudication

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7894/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

Country Inn & Suits by Raddison, Inn, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2) (1)International Taxation, Newdelhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2224/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

enhance guest satisfaction. 10. When the Assessing Officer intended to treat the amount received by the assessee towards centralized services as fee for included services under Article 12(4)(b) of the Tax Treaty, the assessee had relied upon the decision of the Sheraton International Inc. (supra) rendered ... Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty. Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty readS as under: “USA ARTICLE 12 ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES 1. ………….. 2…………… 3. The term "royalties" as used in this Article means : (a) (a) payments of any kind received as a consideration

Radisson Hotels International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2223/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

enhance guest satisfaction. 10. When the Assessing Officer intended to treat the amount received by the assessee towards centralized services as fee for included services under Article 12(4)(b) of the Tax Treaty, the assessee had relied upon the decision of the Sheraton International Inc. (supra) rendered ... Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty. Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty readS as under: “USA ARTICLE 12 ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES 1. ………….. 2…………… 3. The term "royalties" as used in this Article means : (a) (a) payments of any kind received as a consideration

Radisson Hotel International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2222/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

enhance guest satisfaction. 10. When the Assessing Officer intended to treat the amount received by the assessee towards centralized services as fee for included services under Article 12(4)(b) of the Tax Treaty, the assessee had relied upon the decision of the Sheraton International Inc. (supra) rendered ... Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty. Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty readS as under: “USA ARTICLE 12 ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES 1. ………….. 2…………… 3. The term "royalties" as used in this Article means : (a) (a) payments of any kind received as a consideration

Netafim Ltd., Gujarat vs. DCIT Circle- 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16

necessary to look at Article 12(4) of India – Portugal DTAA, reproduced hereunder: “Article 12(4)- For the purposes of this Article, “fees for included services” means payments of any kind, other than those mentioned in Articles 14 and 15 of this Convention, to any person in consideration

Netafim Ltd., Gujarat vs. DCIT Circle- 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 1092/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16

necessary to look at Article 12(4) of India – Portugal DTAA, reproduced hereunder: “Article 12(4)- For the purposes of this Article, “fees for included services” means payments of any kind, other than those mentioned in Articles 14 and 15 of this Convention, to any person in consideration

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pvt Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Comm of Income Tax (International Tax), Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleowens Corning Inc., Dy.Cit C/O-Owens Corning (International Tax), बनाम/ (India) Pvt. Ltd., 7Th Circle-3(2)(2), Vs. Floor, Alpha Building Air India Building, Hiranandani Gardens Nariman Point, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Mumbai-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco3242R (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Passed Under Section 143(3)R.W.S144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuance To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1.0 “Re: Treating Fabrication Charges Received As 'Fees For Technical Services': 1

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla.ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR
Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

Indian company in terms of Para 3 or Article 12 and hence the fees received do not fall within the definition of fees for included services as per Article 12(4)(a) of the DTAA. Since as per Article 12(4)(a) of the DTAA 'Fees for Included Services' should ... skills, experience etc either to OCIPL or to Owens Corning Industries India Pvt. Ltd and hence does not fall within the definition of fees for included services' as per Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. 8 ITA.NO.377/Mum/23 Owens-Corning(Singapore)Pte Ltd. 6. The Assessing Officer

Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this issue is passed in favour of the assessee

ITA 2338/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

technical expertise as well as delivery of technical plan. In view of all the above factors it has to be considered as ‘Fees for included services’. Thus, AO held that, not only its fees for technical services under the provision of Section 9(1)(vii) but also falls

Goldman Sachs & Co., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1264/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

connection with the Campus‟ being built by the latter in Bangalore on the ground that these reimbursements are in the nature of Fees for Included Services (FIS) as per Article 12 of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and makes available technical knowledge, skills, processes, etc. Goldman Sachs ... no.1-2, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the addition of Rs.18,00,83,986, in respect of project administration costs as Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

Goldman Sachs & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6005/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

connection with the Campus‟ being built by the latter in Bangalore on the ground that these reimbursements are in the nature of Fees for Included Services (FIS) as per Article 12 of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and makes available technical knowledge, skills, processes, etc. Goldman Sachs ... no.1-2, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the addition of Rs.18,00,83,986, in respect of project administration costs as Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

Goldman Sachs & Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7490/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

connection with the Campus‟ being built by the latter in Bangalore on the ground that these reimbursements are in the nature of Fees for Included Services (FIS) as per Article 12 of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and makes available technical knowledge, skills, processes, etc. Goldman Sachs ... no.1-2, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the addition of Rs.18,00,83,986, in respect of project administration costs as Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

Goldman Sachs & Company, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 401/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

connection with the Campus‟ being built by the latter in Bangalore on the ground that these reimbursements are in the nature of Fees for Included Services (FIS) as per Article 12 of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and makes available technical knowledge, skills, processes, etc. Goldman Sachs ... no.1-2, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the addition of Rs.18,00,83,986, in respect of project administration costs as Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2977/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (It) – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Marriott International Design Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor & Construction Services Inc., Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 303A, 304, Fulcrum B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Mum/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2977/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19)] M/S. Marriott International Design V. Dcit (It) – 3(2)(1) & Construction Services Inc., Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 303A, 304, Fulcrum Nariman Point B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Paras Savla Department Represented By : Shri Kunal Haver

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

case of the assessee and by relying on various case law, he held that the case of the assessee falls under fees for including services as per Article 12(4)(b) with the following observations:- “11. The Technical Service Agreement entered into by the the assessee company with the 'OWNERS ... there is a transfer of a Technical Plan/Design. Hence the fees received by the Assessee company for these services are classified as "FEES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES" and taxable under Article 12(b) of the India US DTAA. 12. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

technology contained therein. He further referred to the definition of Article 12 of the treaty along with the definition of the term 'fees for included services' ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 specifically contain the condition of 'make available'. He further referred ... resident architectural design and drawings, it was held that fees for such technical services do not fall within the scope of expression 'fee for included services', wherein also the condition of make "make available" was there. He further relied on the decision of Buro Happold Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Macrotech Developrs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

technology contained therein. He further referred to the definition of Article 12 of the treaty along with the definition of the term 'fees for included services' ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 specifically contain the condition of 'make available'. He further referred ... resident architectural design and drawings, it was held that fees for such technical services do not fall within the scope of expression 'fee for included services', wherein also the condition of make "make available" was there. He further relied on the decision of Buro Happold Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Sunbeam Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 235/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

said parties fall within the purview of Fees for Technical Services (“FTS”) as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) as per Article 12(4) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-USA DTAA”). Further, Explanation to section 9(2) & ITA No.235/Del/17 ... received by it from M/s. Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd. 3. As per Article 12(4) of the India USA DTAA, the term FIS (Fee for Included Services) means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services. It is apparent that

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5127/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

said parties fall within the purview of Fees for Technical Services (“FTS”) as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) as per Article 12(4) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-USA DTAA”). Further, Explanation to section 9(2) & ITA No.235/Del/17 ... received by it from M/s. Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd. 3. As per Article 12(4) of the India USA DTAA, the term FIS (Fee for Included Services) means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services. It is apparent that

Sunbeam Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4378/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

said parties fall within the purview of Fees for Technical Services (“FTS”) as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) as per Article 12(4) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-USA DTAA”). Further, Explanation to section 9(2) & ITA No.235/Del/17 ... received by it from M/s. Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd. 3. As per Article 12(4) of the India USA DTAA, the term FIS (Fee for Included Services) means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services. It is apparent that