Section 115A of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 115A is DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. (39 Taxmann.com 88), cited in 269 of the 417 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115A

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.

ONGC v. CIT
376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal and Co.
56 ITR 20 · 1965 · Supreme Court
156
citing judgments

A 'business connection' for non-residents requires a real and intimate relation between their trading activities outside India and activities within India, contributing directly or indirectly to their earnings. The Supreme Court assigned a wide meaning to this term.

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.

18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. ADIT (International Taxation)
44 Taxmann.com 1 · 2014 · ITAT
85
citing judgments

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that the term 'process' in relation to royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act is not defined and must be considered within the contemplation of the term, potentially impacting its application under DTAAs. This decision distinguished itself from the facts of other cases, including those involving broadcasting and advertising airtime.

CIT v. Mitchell Drilling International P. Ltd.
380 ITR 130 · 2016 · High Court
84
citing judgments

For computing presumptive income under Section 44BB, gross receipts do not include service tax reimbursements received from a client (like ONGC) if such amounts are not payments for services or plant/machinery directly used in the prospecting, extraction, or production of mineral oils.

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.

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. DDIT
136 ITD 66 · 2012 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

Interest income received by a foreign bank's Head Office or Overseas Branch is not taxable in India where Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement applies, clarifying the scope of taxability for such entities under DTAAs.

UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT
121 ITD 131 · 2009 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, distinct international transactions, such as royalty payments and manufacturing, should be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated. The selection of comparables must be based on a thorough Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis, and loss-making entities are not automatically excluded if they satisfy other comparability criteria.

National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT
383 ITR 648 · 2016 · High Court
69
citing judgments

An Indian agent providing marketing services, without the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of a foreign company, does not constitute a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) for the foreign company in India under DTAA provisions.

Judgments on Section 115A

Sutherland Global Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITTPA 21/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.It(Tp)A No.: 21/Chny/2023 धनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sutherland Global Services Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax, Gateway Office Parks, Central Circle 3(3), 2Nd Floor, Building B2, Chennai. No.16, G.S.T Road, Perungalathur, Chennai, – 600 063. [Pan: Aaecs-8093-A] प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vijay Mehta, C.A., Mr. Harsh Bafna, C.A & Ms. Asmita Desouza, C.A. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2022-23/1048599548(1) Dated 10.01.2023 Of The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Years 2017-18 Passed In Compliance To Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Vide Order Dated 29.12.2022. 2. The Assessee Had Broadly Raised Grounds Of Appeal For 5 Transfer Pricing Issues & 1 Corporate Tax Issue. The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Submitted That, Subsequently, The Assessee Had Preferred Map Proceedings For Redressal Of Its Issues. Accordingly, In Consonance With The Relief Obtained Through Map Proceedings The Assessee Has Modified Its Grounds Of Appeal Through Its Letters Dated 08.04.2025 R.W.17.04.2025. Further, The Assessee Had Also Filed

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT