Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal rules payments to Facebook Ireland not taxable in India under Income Tax Act

        M/s. Interactive Avenues Private Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (2) (1), Mumbai.

        M/s. Interactive Avenues Private Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (2) (1), Mumbai. - [2022] 100 ITR (Trib) 573 (ITAT [Mum]) Issues Involved:
        1. Justification of disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for payments made to Facebook Ireland Limited without deduction of tax at source.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Justification of Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act:
        The primary issue in this case was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in confirming the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning payments made to Facebook Ireland Limited without deduction of tax at source.

        The assessee, an internet advertising agency, placed advertisements on digital media platforms like Facebook on behalf of its clients. The AO noticed that the assessee had not deducted tax at source from payments made to Facebook Ireland Limited and disallowed the payments under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. This action was upheld by the CIT(A).

        The tribunal examined the nature of the transactions and the role of the assessee, which was merely an intermediary facilitating the placement of advertisements on digital media. The tribunal noted that the assessee's revenue was derived from commissions received for these services, and the payments made to Facebook were on behalf of the clients.

        The AO relied heavily on various articles and decisions, including those from the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Google India Private Limited, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, and the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Reliance Infocom Ltd. However, these decisions were either remanded, set aside, or recalled, thus weakening the AO's reliance on them.

        The assessee argued that the payments to Facebook Ireland Limited were for services rendered for uploading and displaying banner advertisements, which did not involve the use of any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment or copyright. The payments were considered business income for Facebook Ireland Limited, and in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, these payments were not taxable in India, thereby negating the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195(1) of the Act.

        The tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly concluded that the assessee had to deduct tax at source because it acted as a dependent agent of Facebook. The tribunal clarified that the assessee was an agent of Indian advertisers, not Facebook Ireland Limited, and that the payments made to Facebook were on behalf of the clients, not the assessee's expenses.

        The tribunal also referred to the decision in the case of Play Games 24X7 Private Limited vs. DCIT, where it was held that payments for advertisement services on platforms like Facebook did not constitute royalty or fees for technical services and were not subject to tax deduction at source.

        The tribunal concluded that the payments made to Facebook Ireland Limited could not be disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The tribunal relied on the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Urban Ladder Home Decor Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT International Taxation, which had similar facts and concluded that such payments were not royalty and were not subject to tax deduction at source.

        In summary, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the payments made to Facebook Ireland Limited were not subject to disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal emphasized that the payments were for services rendered outside India, did not involve the use of any copyright or equipment, and were not taxable in India due to the absence of a PE for Facebook Ireland Limited in India.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found