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

Tdk Electronics Ag (Formerly Known As Epcos Ag), Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation), Circle-2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 174/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Tdk Electronics Ag Vs Acit (International (Formerly Known As Epcos Taxation), Circle-2, Ag), C/O Epcos India Pvt. Ltd., Pune. E 22-25, Midc Satpur, Nashik. Pan: Aaace 9787 H Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.M. Chate, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Findings Of Ld. Drp-3, Mumbai-2, Dated 20.12.2022 For A.Y. 2020-21 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No.1 - Erroneous Levy Of Income Tax & Interest Thereon 1.1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 2, Pune ('The Learned. Ao') Has Erred In Law & On Facts In: A. Holding That The Appellant Has A Permanent Establishment (Pe) In India & Its Income From Royalty & Fees For Technical Services (Fts) Is Taxable Under Section 115A R.W.S. 44Da Of The Income Tax Act, 196 I ('The Act'); B. Levying Income Tax Including Interest Under Section 234A & Section 234B Of The Act & Raising A Net Demand Payable Of Rs.7,22,18,080 Upon The Appellant. Ground No.2 - Non-Constitution Of Permanent Establishment ('Pe') Of The Appellant In India Tdk Electronics Ag

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Chate, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(i)

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pvt Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Comm of Income Tax (International Tax), Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleowens Corning Inc., Dy.Cit C/O-Owens Corning (International Tax), बनाम/ (India) Pvt. Ltd., 7Th Circle-3(2)(2), Vs. Floor, Alpha Building Air India Building, Hiranandani Gardens Nariman Point, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Mumbai-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco3242R (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Passed Under Section 143(3)R.W.S144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuance To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1.0 “Re: Treating Fabrication Charges Received As 'Fees For Technical Services': 1

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla.ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR
Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)