Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.275

Section 144C(13) falls under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 275 (Reference to Dispute Resolution Panel) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 275 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 144C(13) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 of the 3,426 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 144C(13)

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.

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court
499
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

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.

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. Morgan Stanley & Co.
292 ITR 416 · 2007 · Supreme Court
360
citing judgments

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.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

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.

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.

21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India
2 SCC 181 · 2007 · Supreme Court
318
citing judgments
India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

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)

M/S Northern Operating Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) Special Range-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 2943/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.2943/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Northern Operating Services The Joint Commissioner Of Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, Income-Tax, Special Range 5 V. Rmz Ecospace, Campus 1C Bangalore. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road Bellandur Village, Varthur Hobli Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn1652J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ankur Pai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2023 Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.08.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Providing Transaction Based Business Process Outsourcing Services To Its Group Companies. For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Income Of Rs.68,09,26,340. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 29.08.2015. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)Section 37Section 92C

Intuit India Product Development Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITTPA 957/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.957/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 M/S.Intuit India Product The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Centre Pvt.Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. 7Th Floor, Campus 4A, Bangalore. Pritech Park (Ecospace) Bellandur Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aacci4391P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.Manasa Ananthan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2023 Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Relevant Sub- Grounds. The Learned Ar Submitted That Ground No.1 Is General In Nature & No Specific Adjudication Is Required, Hence, The Same Is Dismissed. Ground No.2 & Its Various Sub-Grounds Are With Reference To Transfer Pricing Adjustment. The Learned Ar Submitted That The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Has Been Settled Under Map Proceedings & Has Filed A Letter To The Effect, Hence, Ground No.2 & Its 2 It(Tp)A No.957/Bang/2022. M/S. Intuit India Product Development Centre Pvt.Ltd.

For Appellant: Smt.Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

Shri Ramesh Allada, Usa vs. ITO, Intnl. Taxn.1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 782/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 54

Shri Suresh Allada, Australia vs. ITO, Intnl Taxation Ward -I(I), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 781/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 54