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)

Utv Software Communications Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2524/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Utv Software Communications The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle – 16(1) Room No. 467, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 013. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacu4122G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Simran Keswani Respondent By : Shri. Pankaj Kumar, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2022 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. Ao’ For Short), Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pursuant To The Direction Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon'Ble Drp’ For Short) Dated 29.06.2022 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Act, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Intends To Withdraw The Present Appeal & Had Made A Written Submission On March, 2025 To That Effect Stating That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Dispute Utv Software Communications Private Limited Through The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 Along With The Relevant Forms As Per The Dtvsv 2024 Scheme. 3. Upon Perusal Of The Same, We Deem It Fit To Dismiss The Appeal Filed By The Assessee As Withdrawn With The Liberty That The Assessee May Revive The Appeal If The Same Has Not Been Settled In The Dtvsv Scheme, If & When Necessary. 4. In The Result, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 24.03.2025 (Narendra Kumar Billaiya)Mumbai; Dated: 24.03.2025 Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer) Copy Of The Order Forwarded To: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Cit- Concerned 4. Dr, Itat, Mumbai 5. Guard File By Order

For Appellant: Ms. Simran KeswaniFor Respondent: Shri. Pankaj Kumar, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)