← All Phrases

“tax treaty”

Chapter X-A - GAARSection 102(11)Section 102(11)1,494 judgments

The decision most relied on for tax treaty is Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), cited in 691 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on tax treaty

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court
691
citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

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. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

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.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT
95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court
213
citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd.
346 ITR 504 · 2012 · High Court
171
citing judgments

For fees for technical services to be taxable under a tax treaty's 'make available' clause, a transfer of technology enabling the recipient to independently perform the service in the future is necessary, beyond mere service rendition. The case also clarifies that re-insurance services do not constitute 'imparting' of information taxable as royalty.

Judgments citing tax treaty

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2)(1), New Delhi vs. Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United State of America

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 1281/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

hands of the assessee. Therefore, it is held, that the said payments do not constitute Royalty under the provisions of Article 12 of the tax treaty and the ground is allowed in favour of assessee.” 7.2.1 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT (A) has taken due cognizance

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(2)(1)International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 1086/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

hands of the assessee. Therefore, it is held, that the said payments do not constitute Royalty under the provisions of Article 12 of the tax treaty and the ground is allowed in favour of assessee.” 7.2.1 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT (A) has taken due cognizance

Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 7924/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

hands of the assessee. Therefore, it is held, that the said payments do not constitute Royalty under the provisions of Article 12 of the tax treaty and the ground is allowed in favour of assessee.” 7.2.1 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT (A) has taken due cognizance

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 130/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

hands of the assessee. Therefore, it is held, that the said payments do not constitute Royalty under the provisions of Article 12 of the tax treaty and the ground is allowed in favour of assessee.” 7.2.1 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT (A) has taken due cognizance

Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 7727/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

hands of the assessee. Therefore, it is held, that the said payments do not constitute Royalty under the provisions of Article 12 of the tax treaty and the ground is allowed in favour of assessee.” 7.2.1 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT (A) has taken due cognizance

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)

observations on payment for supply of know-how and payments for provision of services. Relevant para of OECD Commentary, 2017 on Article 12 of tax treaty are extracted below for ready reference: "11. In classifying as royalty’s payments received as consideration for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience

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)

observations on payment for supply of know-how and payments for provision of services. Relevant para of OECD Commentary, 2017 on Article 12 of tax treaty are extracted below for ready reference: "11. In classifying as royalty’s payments received as consideration for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience

Avana Global Fzco, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-2023 Avana Global Fzco Deputy Commissioner Of Unit No.2002-2004, 2201- Income-Tax (International Tax) 2204 & 2103, 20Th, 21St & – 1(1)(2), Mumbai 22Nd Floor, Building Q 2, Aurum Q Parc Gen 4/1, Vs. Tic, Ghansoli, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai – 400701. (Pan: Aadcb4021A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W. Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Hinal Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna a/w. Shri Hardik Nirmal and Ms. Hinal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 44B

Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (DRP) erred in denying the benefit of Article 8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UAE (Tax Treaty) on the shipping income [including inland haulage charges (IHC)] derived from operation of ships in international traffic. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the learned DCTT(IT) and Hon'ble DRP erred in denying the benefit of Article 8 of the India- UAE Tax Treaty to the Appellant by holding it liable to tax in India under section 44B of the IT Act with respect to its shipping income

Maersk Logistics & Services International A/S (Erstwhile, Damco International A/S), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (It) Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1329/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

that network fee/network income is not a charge and hence it thus comes under the purview of FTS under Article 12 of India Netherlands Tax Treaty. It was strongly contended that such network fee receipts from DIPL are business income under Article 7 of India Netherlands Tax Treaty ... taxable as "Royalty" and "Fee for Technical Services" under the provisions of the Act as well as under Indo-Netherland Tax Treaty. 7. We find that in the case of Damco International AS vs. DCIT in ITA No.933 & 6465/Mum/2017 for assessment years 2012- 13 and 2013- 14, decided on 20/07/2020

ACIT(It)-4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Mumbai

ITA 3795/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

ACIT(It)-4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3794/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

India-USA treaty has submitted that the services provided by it do not qualify as FIS as per Article 12 of the tax treaty. Assessee has also mentioned that the assumption of the ld. Assessing Officer that the qualified staff which is advising and assisting the staff ... advisory services (in the case of GVK Industries). In both these judicial precedents, assessee company did not opt or invoke provisions of the applicable tax treaties. Therefore, the issue before the ITAT and Supreme Court was to determine whether such services fell in the definition of fees for technical services

Puneet Khanna, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3046/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shri Puneet Khanna Vs. Income Tax Officer 8/51, Ramesh Nagar Ward-3(1) New Delhi Gurgaon Pan: Aajpk7067L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. R. R. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

income.” 4. The Assessee claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty ("DTAA") in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income ... procedural provision. As the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, the Assessee has vested right to claim the FTC under the tax treaty, the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. 14. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue

ACIT, Spl. Range-9, New Delhi vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7598/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Further provisions of section 90(2), the taxability of non-resident is governed by the provisions of the Act or provisions of the respective tax treaty, whichever is more beneficial to the non-resident, as such it entitles he payee to opt for the advantageous tax position under the Income ... provisions of DTA is given below and consequent taxability in brief are tabulated below: Nature product design charges for Helix time pieces Taxability relevant tax treaty Such cross-charges should not to be taxable as Fees for Technical Service ("FTS") by the virtue of the restrictive applicability of Article

Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Spl.Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7526/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Additional Commissioner Of Income 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Tax, Special Range-9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner Of M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Income Tax, Special Range-9, 106-107, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi-110002 Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Tushar Jarwal, Adv. Shri Aayush Nagpal, Adv. & Shri Vikrant Maheshwari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Further provisions of section 90(2), the taxability of non-resident is governed by the provisions of the Act or provisions of the respective tax treaty, whichever is more beneficial to the non-resident, as such it entitles he payee to opt for the advantageous tax position under the Income ... provisions of Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands defining royalty submitted as under: “12.2 Further, Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty defines royalty, as following: "4 the term "royalties" as used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1995/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Pranay Gandhi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act and a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5 of the India-Singapore tax treaty (IS treaty) In this regard, the learned AO has additionally inter alia erred on the following grounds: 3.1. The learned AO has made erroneous

Isat Africa Limited Fzc, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the final assessment order passed by AO is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms

ITA 832/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanisat Africa Limited Fzc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Office No. 5 Pre-Fab, C Phase Ii, Of Income Tax Fujairah Free Zone Fujairah, Dubai, International Tax Circle- United Arab Emirates, Dubai - 2(2)(2) 999999 Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan – Aagci8661Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

towards the network connectivity and related services rendered outside India is taxable as royalty under the Act as well as the India-UAE tax treaty. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in holding that the amount received ... right to use of equipment and is chargeable to tax as royalty in India both, under the Act as well as the India-UAE tax treaty. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in facts

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 2259/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

taxed only on receipt basis. 10 ITA No.2259& 1615/Mum/2022; A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Siemens Aktiengesellschaft 80. Even otherwise Article-12 of India-German tax treaty used the word “paid, payments of any kind received and payments of any amount”. The Article12 of India-Germany Tax Treaty which has been ... used in this Article means payments of any amount in consideration and so on 5…. 6….. 7….. (emphasis supplied) 81. Thus, as per the tax treaty, Royalty and fees for technical services income should be taxable only upon payment i.e. on receipt basis. If this position has been accepted

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1615/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

taxed only on receipt basis. 10 ITA No.2259& 1615/Mum/2022; A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Siemens Aktiengesellschaft 80. Even otherwise Article-12 of India-German tax treaty used the word “paid, payments of any kind received and payments of any amount”. The Article12 of India-Germany Tax Treaty which has been ... used in this Article means payments of any amount in consideration and so on 5…. 6….. 7….. (emphasis supplied) 81. Thus, as per the tax treaty, Royalty and fees for technical services income should be taxable only upon payment i.e. on receipt basis. If this position has been accepted

Factive Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation )-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4706/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal & Factive Limited Asst. Cit(It)-2(3)(1) C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Llp 609, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 252, Veer Savarkar Marg, C-41, C-43, G Block, Vs. Shivaji Park, Dadar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 028 Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccf 5745 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W Appellant By Shri Yogesh Malpani & Ms. Kinjal Patel Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. Drp' For Short) & Pertains To The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since The Substantive Issue On Merits, Arising In The Appeals Are More Or Less Common In Both The Appeals, We Propose To Take Up Ita No. 4706/Mum/2023, Pertaining To A.Y. 2021-22, As The Lead Appeal. (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) Factive Limited Vs. Asst. Cit(It) 3. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Are Basically On Legal Issues, Challenging The Validity Of The Final Assessment Order. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Submitted That He Would Prefer To Address The Issues On Merits And, If Warranted, May Press The Legal Grounds.

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

applicable to Article 5(4) of India-UK DTAA and is only with reference to certain exceptions provided under Article 5(3) of the Tax Treaty, which in turn is with reference to fixed place PE under Article 5(1) of the Treaty. Thus, he submitted, there is no reason ... Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andalon 263 ITR 706. Accordingly, we will consider the beneficial provisions of the tax treaty to see whether the contention of the assessee that the alleged payment from DJCIPL is not royalty income. (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) Factive

Mall of Jaipur Owners Welfare Association, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 333/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Mittal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Struggles Pvt. Ltd. as income from other sources, which according to the assessee was not taxable, in view of the provisions of India US Tax Treaty as the services rendered by the assessee do not specify the 'make available 15 Mall of Jaipur Owners Welfare Association, Jaipur. clause of India ... Tax Treaty'. The same was not accepted by the AO and the application u/s 154 of the Act of the assessee was rejected by the AO and the appeal against the said rejection was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). 2.14iv. On further appeal, the co-ordinate bench