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)

Chemangattu Jose John, Kottayam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Tvm

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/COCH/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2015-16 Chemangattu Jose John Dcit, Circle International V. Taxation, Tvm Chemangattu House, Koodalloor Post, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam, Kerala 686595. Pan : Atxpj2649R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R Krishnan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Irs, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2024 Passed By The Dcit Circle Intl. Txn, Tvm (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act (‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Had Sold Two Agricultural Properties Totaling To Rs.15,59,000/-. The Actual Sale Consideration Was Rs.34,00,000/- & However, As Per Registered Deed, The Sale Consideration Was Rs.15,59,000 & Balance Rs.18,41,000/- Remains Unexplained. The Assessing Officer Made An Addition Of 2 Chemangattu Jose John Rs.18,41,000/- U/S 69A Of The Act As The Assessee Failed To Give Satisfactory Reply Before Him.

For Appellant: Shri R Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, IRS, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69Section 69A