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)

Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sasken Communications Technologies Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 627/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A 550/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year:2011-12) M/S.Sasken Technologies Ltd. 139/25, Amarjyothi Layout, Ring Road, Domlur, Bengaluru-560071. Pan:Aaecs 6424 R … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent & It(Tp)A No.627/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year:2011-12) (By Revenue) ****** Assessee By : Shri Padamchand Khincha,Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/11/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29/01/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Rendering Software Development Services. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Was Filed On 28/11/2011 Declaring Income Of Rs.25,33,10,603/- & This Was Revised On It(Tp)A No.550 & 627/Bang/2016 Page 2 Of 21 20/03/2013 At Total Income Of Rs.23,72,94,572/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Took Up The Case For Scrutiny By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Noticing The Following International Transactions In Form 3Ced Along With Transfer Pricing Study Report:

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha,CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C