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)

Verticurl Marketing Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. The Drp -2, Bengaluru

ITTPA 25/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.25/Chny/2021 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Verticurl Marketing Private Limited Dcit Tower B, 1St Floor, India Land Tech Park बनाम Corporate Circle-2, Chil Sez Area Keeranatham, Coimbatore. / Vs. Sarvampatti, Coimbatore-641 035. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcv-2270-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) – Ld.Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year(Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi [Ao] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act On 31-03-2021 Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru U/S 144C(5) Dated 26-02-2021. Since The Assessee Carried Out Certain International Transactions With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), The Same Were 2 It(Tp)A No. 25/Chny/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) – Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

M/S Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITTPA 38/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.(Tp)A. No.38/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Aban Singapore Pte Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O P. Murali & Co., Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, International Tax 1(1), Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. Chennai. [Pan: Aaqca2845Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sasikumar, Cit For : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 12.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 30.06.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Intl Tax 11) & Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To General As Ao Is Bad Both In The Eyes Of Law & On Facts.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 28Section 40Section 43Section 44BSection 90

M/S.Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITTPA 13/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.(Tp)A. No.13/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aban Singapore Pte Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O P. Murali & Co., Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, International Tax 1(1), Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. Chennai. [Pan: Aaqca2845Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sasikumar, Cit For : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 09.02.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 23.01.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Intl Tax 1(1) & Chennai (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao') Is Bad Both In The Eve Of Law & On Facts.

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195(2)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 90

M/S. Deep Drilling 5 Pte Limited, Singapore vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITTPA 1/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.(Tp)A. No.1/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Deep Drilling 5 Pte Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O P. Murali & Co., Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, International Tax 1(1), Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. Chennai. [Pan: Aafcd9063N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sasikumar, Cit For : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 21.01.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Intl Tax 1(1) & Chennai (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao') Is Bad Both In The Eve Of Law & On Facts.

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195(2)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 90

Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 192/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 192/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Plot No. 3, Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Bommasandra Industrial Income Tax, Area, Circle 2 (1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 099. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aadcc6152H Appellant Respondent : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Carl Zeiss India" Or "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- Tax Officer, National Faceless Center, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Assessing Officer" Or The "Ld. Ao"), Dated 25 January 2022 For The Assessment Year ("Ay")

For Respondent: Shri Nageshwar Rao
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)