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)

Aveva Information Technology India Private Limited (Successor of Aveva Software Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4813/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4813/Mum/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-2021) Aveva Information Technology Vs. Dcit, Circle-15(1)(1), India Private Limited(Successor Mumbai Of Aveva Software Pvt. Ltd.) Unit No.202, A Wing Supreme Business Park, Hiranandani Gardens, Supreme City Powai Mumbai-400076 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aadca 0847 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Yash Ranglani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Challenging The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) R.W. Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai-2, For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At The Time Of The Hearing, The Learned Ar For The Assessee Submitted A Copy Of The Acknowledgement Dated 31.01.2025 Of Filing Of Form 1 Under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 & Stated That 2 Aveva Information Technology India Pvt. Ltd. The Assessee Has Opted For Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.In Light Of The Above Letter, We Dismiss The Appeal Of The Assessee With The Liberty To Reinstate The Appeal If Its Application Under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, Is Not Accepted.

For Appellant: Mr. Yash Ranglani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Techint India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6656/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Techint India Private Limited Assessment Unit, Income Tax A/5Th Floor, I Think Techno Campus, Department Pokhran Road No. 2, Off Eastern Jurisdictional Ao, Income Tax Express Highway, Thane West, Vs. Department, Jurisdictional Ao, Mumbai – 400601. Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Thane. Pan/Gir No. Aadct3127D (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Kaustubh Karkhania Respondent By : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 25.10.2024 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. Ao’ For Short) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pursuant To The Directions Of Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon’Ble Drp’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Filed Applications Dated 13.01.2025 & 03.02.2025 Stating That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Dispute Through The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 Along With Copy Of Form 1, Form 2 & Form 3 Dtvsv 2024. Techint India Private Limited 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 07.02.2025 (Girish Agarwal)Mumbai; Dated: 07.02.2025 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: Shri. Kaustubh KarkhaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)