← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(vii)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)933 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(vii) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii)

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. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

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. 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.

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).

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.
125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court
270
citing judgments

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

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.

Judgments citing Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the revenue’s corresponding grounds stand dismissed

ITA 1322/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143Section 160(1)Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

made by the assessee to non-resident entity for services rendered outside India as fees for technical services or not in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The issue before us is disallowance of sum paid to non-resident without ... Heavy Industries Ltd., vs. DIT, (supra. The Hon’ble Supreme court while deciding the issue of FTS has considered pre-amended provisions of section 9(1)(vii) and held that if any payment in the nature of FTS to be taxed in India, as per provisions of section 9(1

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allsec Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 421/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 195(1)Section 40

made by the assessee to non-resident entity for services rendered outside India as fees for technical services or not in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The issue before us is disallowance of sum paid to non-resident without ... Harima Heavy Industries Ltd., vs. DIT, (supra. The Hon’ble Supreme court while deciding the issue of FTS has considered preamended provisions of section 9(1)(vii) and held that if any payment in the nature of FTS to be taxed in India, as per provisions of section 9(1

DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai vs. Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 3044/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

payment made by the assessee to non-resident service provider is in the nature of managerial service which comes under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since, the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on payment to non-resident ... source u/s. 195 of the Act, does not come under the provisions :-20-: ITA. No:2901, 2902 ,3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and consequently, assessee need not to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act and thus, question of disallowance of said payment

DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai vs. Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 3043/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

payment made by the assessee to non-resident service provider is in the nature of managerial service which comes under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since, the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on payment to non-resident ... source u/s. 195 of the Act, does not come under the provisions :-20-: ITA. No:2901, 2902 ,3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and consequently, assessee need not to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act and thus, question of disallowance of said payment

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 2902/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

payment made by the assessee to non-resident service provider is in the nature of managerial service which comes under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since, the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on payment to non-resident ... source u/s. 195 of the Act, does not come under the provisions :-20-: ITA. No:2901, 2902 ,3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and consequently, assessee need not to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act and thus, question of disallowance of said payment

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 2901/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

payment made by the assessee to non-resident service provider is in the nature of managerial service which comes under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since, the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on payment to non-resident ... source u/s. 195 of the Act, does not come under the provisions :-20-: ITA. No:2901, 2902 ,3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and consequently, assessee need not to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act and thus, question of disallowance of said payment

Michael Page International Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Tax) -3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 751/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Michael Page International Pte Limited, C/O.Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, 2North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Compelx, Mumbai -400 051 Pan:Aahcm-6965-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi Maru ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Assessment Order By Raising Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

conclusion that fees received by the assessee for providing business support services is in fact managerial and consultancy service as defined in section 9(1)(vii)(c), Explanation -2. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that the fees paid by Indian entity to the assessee is covered under “fees for included ... India u/s. 9(1)(i) of the Act. The amount charged was thus, held to be fees for technical services as per section 9(1)(vii) (c) r.w.s. Article 12(4) of the India – Singapore DTAA. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.144/Mum/2021 (supra

M/S Owens Coming Inc, Mumbai vs. The DCIT(Intl Tax) Circle 3(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 459/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Owens-Corning Inc. C/O.Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aaaco-3242-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue By Way Of Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

treated the said receipts as royalty in terms of Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and USA and as per section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 5 of the Income-tax Act and brought it to tax accordingly. The assessee, on the other hand, maintains that

Shell Informaation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 996/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 270A

India would fall within the expression 'fees for technical services' as appearing in article,. 13(4)'(c) of the DTAA read with section 9(1)(vii) of the said Act. While doing so the Tribunal, inter alia, found that the assessee company was an international reinsurance intermediary (broker

Shellinformation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2308/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 270A

India would fall within the expression 'fees for technical services' as appearing in article,. 13(4)'(c) of the DTAA read with section 9(1)(vii) of the said Act. While doing so the Tribunal, inter alia, found that the assessee company was an international reinsurance intermediary (broker

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

assessee to its foreign agent for arranging of export sales and recovery of payments cannot be regarded as fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii). He also relied on following decisions holding that export commission is not Fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii ... Oman, the definition of the term ‘Fees for technical services’ as per the Treaty between India and these countries is similar to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. As a result, commission paid to BAP’s situated in Kenya, South Africa, New Zealand and Turkey are not liable

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1526/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalrenaissance Services Bv, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 Pan: Aaecr4995E ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Paras Savla/Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Indian hotels under the Training and Computer Systems Agreement (TCSA) were not in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as well as under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty ... TCSA (such as medical insurance premium, stock compensation and like benefits) were not in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty;” 3. For sake of convenience and better understanding

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2092/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 721/CHNY/2020[2019-20 (April, 2018-September, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 195(2)

examined in light of various averments including cost sharing agreement, certificate issued by the Deloitte GmbH and the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with DTAA between India and Germany. Further, similar issue was considered by the Mumbai Benches of the ITAT in assessee’s group ... having not rendered any services to the assessee, payment made cannot be treated as fees for technical services as per Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vii) has not been considered by the Departmental Authorities both factually and legally. Further, the contention of the assessee that when another Indian company

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 720/CHNY/2020[2018-19 (October, 2017 to March, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 195(2)

examined in light of various averments including cost sharing agreement, certificate issued by the Deloitte GmbH and the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with DTAA between India and Germany. Further, similar issue was considered by the Mumbai Benches of the ITAT in assessee’s group ... having not rendered any services to the assessee, payment made cannot be treated as fees for technical services as per Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vii) has not been considered by the Departmental Authorities both factually and legally. Further, the contention of the assessee that when another Indian company

Spencer Stuart International B.V. Tax, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It) -4(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 514/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

appellant from Spencer Stuart India Private Limited [SS India] towards executive search fees is taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Articles 12(5)(a) and / or 12(5)(b) of the India- Netherlands tax treaty ... received by the appellant from Spencer Stuart India Private Limited [SS India] towards management fees is taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Articles 12(5)(a) and / or 12(5)(b) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty

Spencer Stuart International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

appellant from Spencer Stuart India Private Limited [SS India] towards executive search fees is taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Articles 12(5)(a) and / or 12(5)(b) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty ... India for expenses incurred on its behalf at cost (without any mark-up) as taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as under Articles 12(5) (a) and 12(5)(b) of the India Netherlands tax treaty

Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle - 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2791/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S.Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.672, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Temple Tower, Chennai. Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.

For Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

record. M/s.Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: 2. The learned CIT(A) fundamentally assumed jurisdiction fact wrongly and failed to appreciate the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that deduction of 25% of project value retained