Which cases are most cited on Section 44DA?

ONGC v. CIT (376 ITR 306) — 241 citing judgments; CIT v. Mitchell Drilling International P. Ltd. (380 ITR 130) — 84 citing judgments; UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT (121 ITD 131) — 70 citing judgments; Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT (386 ITR 353) — 58 citing judgments; CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. (18 ITR 472) — 34 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 44DA?

BharatTax indexes 38 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 44DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 44DA of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 44DA of the Income Tax Act?

ONGC v. CIT (376 ITR 306) is the decision most relied on for Section 44DA, cited in 241 judgments. Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

The decision most relied on for Section 44DA is ONGC v. CIT (376 ITR 306), cited in 241 of the 38 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44DA

ONGC v. CIT

376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court

241

citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

CIT v. Mitchell Drilling International P. Ltd.

380 ITR 130 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

For computing presumptive income under Section 44BB, gross receipts do not include service tax reimbursements received from a client (like ONGC) if such amounts are not payments for services or plant/machinery directly used in the prospecting, extraction, or production of mineral oils.

UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT

121 ITD 131 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, distinct international transactions, such as royalty payments and manufacturing, should be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated. The selection of comparables must be based on a thorough Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis, and loss-making entities are not automatically excluded if they satisfy other comparability criteria.

Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT

386 ITR 353 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

The burden of proving the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) rests squarely on the Income Tax Department.

CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co.

18 ITR 472 · 1950 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Profits derived from manufacturing and sale activities should be apportioned based on well-established accountancy principles, attributing a greater portion to the manufacturing activity at the place of manufacture.

Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT

158 Taxmann 259 · 2007 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

DIT v. Rio Tinto Technical Services

340 ITR 507 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Income that is considered business income for tax purposes must be computed on a net basis, accounting for expenses incurred to earn that income, and cannot be taxed in India on a gross basis.

Sumitomo Corpn v. Dy. CIT

114 ITD 61 · 2008 · ITAT

citing judgments

Trib.). 14. Bramhacorp Hotels & Resorts Ltd. v. DDIT

103 Taxmann.com 344 · 2019 · ITAT

citing judgments

Trib.). 13. DCIT v. Forum Homes (P.) Ltd.

192 ITD 184 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 44DA

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC.,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), RANGE 2(3)(2) - MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed in terms of above directions

ITA 8248/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankargemological Institute Of Vs. Acit (International America Taxation), Range - 5345, The Robert Mouawad 2(3)(2) Mumbai Campus, Armada Drive, Room No. 610, 6Th Carlsbad, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, California - 092008 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aadcg7962K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistry-Sr. Adv./Gunjan Kakkad Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 03.09.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2020-21. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 244ASection 92C

BOBST BIELEFELD GMBH,GERMANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6029/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 152/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Ita No. 153/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Intecsea Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd, 13A, Subhash Road, Income Road No. 11, Barijara Hills, Tax Officer, Dehradun-248001 Hyderabad-500034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci3002L Assessee By : Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

BECHTEL LIMITED,LONDON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1816/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 670/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri GSV Prasad, Anand Swaroop and S K Mohanty, CAsFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 201Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44D