Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.275

Section 144C(5) 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(5) is CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (345 ITR 494), cited in 461 of the 865 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 144C(5)

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

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. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.
55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court
273
citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

III v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
93 Taxmann.com 33 · 2018 · Supreme Court
245
citing judgments

When computing the deduction available under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, communication expenses must be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating the eligible relief.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT
224 ITR 627 · 1997 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

Where an assessee has mixed funds (both interest-bearing and interest-free funds) and makes an interest-free advance or investment, it is presumed that the interest-free funds were utilized first if they are sufficient to cover such advances or investments. This prevents disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under Section 36(1)(iii).

MOHD. HANIF QUARESHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS. 381 7
6 SCC 312 · 2012 · Reported
138
citing judgments

Where proceedings are initiated under Section 147, but the assessment is completed under Section 143(3), it is not a prerequisite that the assessee must have filed a return under Section 139.

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 206 · 2015 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When determining the arm's length price for interest on a foreign currency loan advanced to an Associated Enterprise, the Indian Prime Lending Rate is not applicable. Instead, the interest rate should be benchmarked based on the prevailing foreign currency rate, such as EURIBOR, or the rate in the country where the loan is received/consumed.

Judgments on Section 144C(5)

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)