Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2019 (8) TMI 979 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        Appeal Allowed: Executive search fees not taxable under India-Netherlands Tax Treaty The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that executive search fees were not taxable as fees for technical services or royalty under the India-Netherlands ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Appeal Allowed: Executive search fees not taxable under India-Netherlands Tax Treaty

                          The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that executive search fees were not taxable as fees for technical services or royalty under the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. Reimbursement of expenses was also deemed non-taxable as fees for technical services. The Tribunal directed deletion of the additions, resolving the issues in favor of the appellant, applying the decision for Assessment Year 2014-15 mutatis mutandis to the appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Legality of the assessment order.
                          2. Consideration of factual and legal objections by the DRP.
                          3. Taxability of executive search fees as fees for technical services.
                          4. Taxability of executive search fees as royalty.
                          5. Classification of search fees as ancillary and subsidiary to license fees.
                          6. Availability of technology/technical know-how through services rendered.
                          7. Observations in the assessment order.
                          8. Double taxation and undue hardship.
                          9. Taxability of reimbursed expenses as fees for technical services.
                          10. Proof of no profit element in reimbursed expenses.
                          11. Levy of interest under Section 234B.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Legality of the Assessment Order:
                          The appellant challenged the assessment order dated 03.10.2017, claiming it was illegal and bad in law. The Tribunal did not specifically address this ground but focused on the substantive issues regarding the nature and taxability of the income in question.

                          2. Consideration of Factual and Legal Objections by the DRP:
                          The appellant argued that the DRP did not judiciously and independently consider the factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order. The Tribunal's analysis indicated that the DRP's directions were consistent with the assessing authority's stance from previous years, thus indirectly addressing this issue.

                          3. Taxability of Executive Search Fees as Fees for Technical Services:
                          The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the appellant's case for Assessment Year 2011-12, where it was held that the executive search fees were not taxable as fees for technical services under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Tribunal reiterated that the services did not "make available" technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes, nor did they constitute the development and transfer of a technical plan or design.

                          4. Taxability of Executive Search Fees as Royalty:
                          The Assessing Officer's alternative stance that the executive search fees could be taxed as royalty under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that the executive search services were distinct from the license agreement that generated royalty income, which had already been offered to tax.

                          5. Classification of Search Fees as Ancillary and Subsidiary to License Fees:
                          The Tribunal upheld its previous finding that the executive search fees were independent of the license fees and were not ancillary or subsidiary to the license agreement. The principal business of SS India was to execute executive searches, and the fees for these services were not related to the enjoyment of rights under the license agreement.

                          6. Availability of Technology/Technical Know-How Through Services Rendered:
                          The Tribunal found no evidence to support the DRP/DCIT's conclusion that the services rendered made available technology or technical know-how to SS India. The Tribunal noted that the executive search services did not involve the transfer of technical knowledge or processes.

                          7. Observations in the Assessment Order:
                          The appellant objected to certain observations in the assessment order. The Tribunal did not specifically address these objections but focused on the substantive issues.

                          8. Double Taxation and Undue Hardship:
                          The appellant argued that taxing the executive search fees would result in double taxation since TDS had already been recovered from SS India. The Tribunal did not specifically address this ground but resolved the issue by determining the non-taxability of the executive search fees.

                          9. Taxability of Reimbursed Expenses as Fees for Technical Services:
                          The Tribunal referred to its previous decision, which held that reimbursement of expenses did not constitute fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition related to the reimbursement of expenses.

                          10. Proof of No Profit Element in Reimbursed Expenses:
                          The Tribunal reiterated that the reimbursement of expenses was supported by third-party invoices and did not include any profit element. The Tribunal found the DRP's reliance on previous directions without considering the factual evidence provided by the appellant to be misplaced.

                          11. Levy of Interest Under Section 234B:
                          The Tribunal noted that the levy of interest under Section 234B was consequential and did not require specific adjudication.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the executive search fees were not taxable as fees for technical services or royalty under the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The reimbursement of expenses was also not taxable as fees for technical services. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions and resolved the issues in favor of the appellant. The decision for Assessment Year 2014-15 was applied mutatis mutandis to the appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found