Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act
The decision most relied on for Section 144C(13) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 879 of the 1,210 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 144C(13)
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.
The Delhi High Court holds that the Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a valid or proper method for determining the arm's length price for Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses in transfer pricing.
Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.
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.
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.
A Permanent Establishment (PE) signifies a foreign enterprise's virtual projection into another country, with a fixed place PE existing where an MNE's business is wholly or partly carried on. A dependent agent PE requires the agent to act as such and/or have the authority to conclude contracts for the foreign enterprise under DTAA provisions.
Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.
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.
Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.
Judgments on Section 144C(13)
Showing 1–20 of 1,210 · Page 1 of 61
