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

M/S.Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITTPA 13/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.(Tp)A. No.13/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aban Singapore Pte Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O P. Murali & Co., Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, International Tax 1(1), Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. Chennai. [Pan: Aaqca2845Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sasikumar, Cit For : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 09.02.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 23.01.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Intl Tax 1(1) & Chennai (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao') Is Bad Both In The Eve Of Law & On Facts.

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195(2)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 90

M/S. Deep Drilling 5 Pte Limited, Singapore vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITTPA 1/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.(Tp)A. No.1/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Deep Drilling 5 Pte Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O P. Murali & Co., Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, International Tax 1(1), Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. Chennai. [Pan: Aafcd9063N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sasikumar, Cit For : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 21.01.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Intl Tax 1(1) & Chennai (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao') Is Bad Both In The Eve Of Law & On Facts.

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195(2)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 90

Spark44 Demand Creation Partners Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the ground of appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1294/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhspark44 Demand Creation Vs. Assistant Commissioner Partners Private Limited Of Income Tax, 91 Springboard Business Centralized Processing Hub Pvt. Ltd., 175, Cell-Tds Kagalwala House, 2Nd Tds Cpc, Aayakar Floor, Vidyanagri Marg, Bhawan, Sector -3, Kalina, Santacruz (E) Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Mumbai – 400098 Up- 401010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs3113M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Nimit Vora Respondent By : Ram Krishna Kedia Date Of Hearing 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 17.02.2023 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell Tds (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Ld. Ao') In Determining Tds Liability @ 20% On Amount Payable To Non-Resident Payee Towards Inter-Company Management Fees By Applying Provisions Of Section 206Aa R.W.S. 195 Of The Act In The Absence Of Pan Of Non-Resident Payee. 2. The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Following:

For Appellant: Nimit VoraFor Respondent: Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 154Section 195Section 200ASection 206A