← 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 (It) -4(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1759/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 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;” 4. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT (It) -4 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1758/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 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;” 4. We have heard the rival submissions

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

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1453/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 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;” 4. We have heard the rival submissions

ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2549/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Jangid, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 40Section 90

Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the amount payable to them was chargeable to tax in India under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r/w Articles 12/22/23 of the respective DTAAs. 3.9 In view of the above discussion, the payments of professional fees amounting

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

assessee cannot be considered neither to be ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) r.w. Expl. 5 & 6, nor Fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) or the Act. The assessee submitted on following prepositions in respect of the payments made to J& P Coats:  The payment made ... adjudicating that the payment made by the Appellant to JPCL is not in the nature of FTS under explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that payments made by the Appellant to JPCL is for providing services which

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

assessee cannot be considered neither to be ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) r.w. Expl. 5 & 6, nor Fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) or the Act. The assessee submitted on following prepositions in respect of the payments made to J& P Coats:  The payment made ... adjudicating that the payment made by the Appellant to JPCL is not in the nature of FTS under explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that payments made by the Appellant to JPCL is for providing services which

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

vii) of the Act or not. Section 9 of the Act lists out income which are “deemed to accrue or rise in India”. Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act reads as under:- 19 M/s Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. “9(1)(vii) income by way of fees for technical ... technical services to the appellant company. Therefore, the payment made towards these technical services is undisputedly fee for technical services as stipulated in Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, liable for deduction of tax at source.” 7.8 The contention of the Ld A.R is that the assessee

Cerner Healthcare Solution India Private Limited(Earlier Known As Cerner India Health Services Private Limited) ( Erstwhile Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 254/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

that the services provided by the seconded employee is in the nature of fees for technical services (FTS) defined in explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) and hence tax need to be deducted at source. The assessing officer relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 988/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

that income arising due to payments for the services mentioned would come under the ambit of “fees for technical services” as described in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The nature of remittance as per Form 15CB is ‘training charges’. According to him, the amount paid for training services ... into whether the fees paid by the assessee towards training is tax deductible, we will look at the relevant provisions of section 9(1)(vii) which is as follows:- Definition of Fees for Technical Services as per section 9(1)(vii) “(vii) income by way of fees for technical services

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 987/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

services mentioned in section 5(2) of the Act would come under the ambit of “fees for technical services” as described in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the payments made to non-residents in this case is chargeable to tax in India as per the provisions ... into whether the fees paid by the assessee towards training is tax deductible, we will look at the relevant provisions of section 9(1)(vii) and also relevant Article of DTAA. Definition of Fees for Technical Services as per section 9(1)(vii) (vii) income by way of fees

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

services' as appearing in 11 M/s. Shell Information Technology International B.V. ITA No.1245/Mum./2021 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

DCIT (It) 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Globalcom.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2319/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Amit Khatiwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee from Tata Communications Ltd. (erstwhile VSNL) as 'standby maintenance charges was not in the nature of 'Fees for technical services' under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fundamental fact that the act of maintenance of infrastructure by the assessee ... Network Operation Centre under the Construction and Maintenance Agreement dated 14.12.1995, is itself in the nature of rendering managerial and technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as the assessee is rendering services by way of constantly monitoring the under-sea cable systems? 2. Whether

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

definition of FTS/FIS as per the provisions Page 5 of 45 IT(IT)A Nos. 362 to 369 & 338 to 345/Bang/2020 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per the provisions of the DTAA between India and the respective countries. Aggrieved by the order ... render any other service to the assessee. It was submitted that, consequently in respect of the reimbursements made, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) would not be attracted. 19. It was submitted that, as per section 9(1)(vii), the term 'fees for technical services' means any 'consideration

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

definition of FTS/FIS as per the provisions Page 5 of 45 IT(IT)A Nos. 362 to 369 & 338 to 345/Bang/2020 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per the provisions of the DTAA between India and the respective countries. Aggrieved by the order ... render any other service to the assessee. It was submitted that, consequently in respect of the reimbursements made, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) would not be attracted. 19. It was submitted that, as per section 9(1)(vii), the term 'fees for technical services' means any 'consideration

M/S Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

definition of FTS/FIS as per the provisions Page 5 of 45 IT(IT)A Nos. 362 to 369 & 338 to 345/Bang/2020 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per the provisions of the DTAA between India and the respective countries. Aggrieved by the order ... render any other service to the assessee. It was submitted that, consequently in respect of the reimbursements made, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) would not be attracted. 19. It was submitted that, as per section 9(1)(vii), the term 'fees for technical services' means any 'consideration

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 366/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

definition of FTS/FIS as per the provisions Page 5 of 45 IT(IT)A Nos. 362 to 369 & 338 to 345/Bang/2020 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per the provisions of the DTAA between India and the respective countries. Aggrieved by the order ... render any other service to the assessee. It was submitted that, consequently in respect of the reimbursements made, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) would not be attracted. 19. It was submitted that, as per section 9(1)(vii), the term 'fees for technical services' means any 'consideration

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 365/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

definition of FTS/FIS as per the provisions Page 5 of 45 IT(IT)A Nos. 362 to 369 & 338 to 345/Bang/2020 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per the provisions of the DTAA between India and the respective countries. Aggrieved by the order ... render any other service to the assessee. It was submitted that, consequently in respect of the reimbursements made, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) would not be attracted. 19. It was submitted that, as per section 9(1)(vii), the term 'fees for technical services' means any 'consideration

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

definition of FTS/FIS as per the provisions Page 5 of 45 IT(IT)A Nos. 362 to 369 & 338 to 345/Bang/2020 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per the provisions of the DTAA between India and the respective countries. Aggrieved by the order ... render any other service to the assessee. It was submitted that, consequently in respect of the reimbursements made, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) would not be attracted. 19. It was submitted that, as per section 9(1)(vii), the term 'fees for technical services' means any 'consideration

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 363/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

definition of FTS/FIS as per the provisions Page 5 of 45 IT(IT)A Nos. 362 to 369 & 338 to 345/Bang/2020 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per the provisions of the DTAA between India and the respective countries. Aggrieved by the order ... render any other service to the assessee. It was submitted that, consequently in respect of the reimbursements made, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) would not be attracted. 19. It was submitted that, as per section 9(1)(vii), the term 'fees for technical services' means any 'consideration

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

definition of FTS/FIS as per the provisions Page 5 of 45 IT(IT)A Nos. 362 to 369 & 338 to 345/Bang/2020 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per the provisions of the DTAA between India and the respective countries. Aggrieved by the order ... render any other service to the assessee. It was submitted that, consequently in respect of the reimbursements made, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) would not be attracted. 19. It was submitted that, as per section 9(1)(vii), the term 'fees for technical services' means any 'consideration