Just a moment...

⚠✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Keyword Search :
AI Tools : New
Ask tax questions in natural language. Powered by AI trained on the TaxTMI legal database. Use AI Tools ➞
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
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
    8. 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 ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - 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
Law:
---- All Laws----❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
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
    Act RulesBills
    Doctrine of Reasonable Cause in Tax Penalties : Clause 470 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act RulesBills
    Voluntary Disclosure and Penalty Waiver under Indian Tax Law : Clause 469 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Act RulesBills
    Penalties for Non-Compliance with TDCAN/TAN Requirements : Clause 468 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Act RulesBills
    Penalty Provision for PAN/Aadhaar Non-Compliance in Indian Tax Law : Clause 467 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Act RulesBills
    Penalty Provisions for deterrence against non-cooperation with tax authorities : Clause 466 of Incom...
    Act RulesBills
    Procedural Defaults and Penalties in Indian Tax Law : Clause 465 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act RulesBills
    Ensuring Compliance Among Tax-Exempt Entities : Clause 464 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act RulesBills
    Professionals(i.e. Accountant, Marchant Banker, Registered Valuer) Accountability under Indian Incom...
    Act RulesBills
    Enforcement of Information Disclosure in Cross-Border Transactions : Clause 462 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Act RulesBills
    Penalty Provisions for Non-Filing and Incorrect Filing of TDS/TCS Statements : Clause 461 of the Inc...
    Act RulesBills
    Enforcement of Reporting Obligations by a non-resident having liaison office : Clause 460 of Income ...
    Act RulesBills
    Penalties for Reporting Non-Compliance by Resident constituent entity of an international group unde...
    Act RulesBills
    Legal Implications of Non-Compliance with Reporting Requirements : Clause 458 of the Income Tax Bill...
    Act RulesBills
    Strengthening Transfer Pricing Enforcement : Clause 457 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 271...
    Act RulesBills
    Compliance and Penalty Mechanisms for Investment Funds under Indian Tax Law : Clause 456 of the Inco...
    Act RulesBills
    Penalties for Inaccurate Financial Reporting under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 455 of the Income ...
    Act RulesBills
    Penalties for Non-Compliance in Financial Transaction Reporting : Clause 454 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Act RulesBills
    Penalty Provisions for Non-compliant Loan Repayments in India's Income Tax Law : Clause 453 of the I...
    Act RulesBills
    Mandatory Electronic Payments and Penalty Regimes : Clause 452 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
    Act RulesBills
    Evolving Penalty Regimes for Monetary Transaction Violations : Clause 451 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
❮
❯
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Open Link
    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Act RulesBills
    Doctrine of Reasonable Cause in Tax Penalties : Clause 470 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defense protects taxpayers from penalties for bona fide, non culpable defaults and encourages documented compliance.
    Clause 470 creates an exception to specified penalty provisions: no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves there was reasonable cause for the failure. It functions as a non obstante provision covering enumerated sections, shifts the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and is aimed primarily at bona fide procedural or technical lapses rather than deliberate violations.
    Act RulesBills
    Voluntary Disclosure and Penalty Waiver under Indian Tax Law : Clause 469 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Show AI Summary
    Voluntary disclosure and penalty waiver enable administrative relief when pre detection disclosure, cooperation and payment conditions are met.
    Clause 469 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under section 439 where a taxpayer has made a full and true voluntary disclosure before detection, cooperated in assessment and paid or arranged payment of tax or interest; it includes a deeming rule for full disclosure, prior approval safeguards for high value cases, a bar on multiple reliefs, a genuine hardship route with recorded reasons, a twelve month disposal limit, opportunity to be heard, and finality of orders.
    Act RulesBills
    Penalties for Non-Compliance with TDCAN/TAN Requirements : Clause 468 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to quote TDCAN/TAN: discretionary fixed sanctions apply for non compliance and knowingly false quoting.
    Clause 468 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed monetary penalty for failure to comply with Section 397 and for quoting a false Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number in prescribed documents where the person knows or believes it to be false, making the penalty discretionary and imposing a mens rea requirement for false quoting while not expressly providing for a statutory opportunity of being heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Penalty Provision for PAN/Aadhaar Non-Compliance in Indian Tax Law : Clause 467 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Show AI Summary
    PAN/Aadhaar compliance: new per-default penalty regime distinguishes intentional false quoting from strict liability omissions and extends responsible person liability.
    Clause 467 establishes a per-default penalty regime for non-compliance with section 262, differentiating intentional false PAN/Aadhaar quoting-which requires proof of knowledge or belief-from omissions treated as strict liability, and extends liability to persons responsible for ensuring correct quoting/authentication; it emphasizes authentication and digital e KYC integration while remaining silent on express procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to be heard, creating potential due process and transitional issues.
    Act RulesBills
    Penalty Provisions for deterrence against non-cooperation with tax authorities : Clause 466 of Incom...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non cooperation: new provision allows senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty without explicit hearing safeguards.
    Clause 466 empowers specified senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty for failure to comply with section 254, mirroring prior penalty structure in authority and capped quantum but omitting express procedural safeguards such as an opportunity of being heard, defences like reasonable cause, and a requirement to record reasons, thereby raising concerns about procedural fairness and consistency in imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Procedural Defaults and Penalties in Indian Tax Law : Clause 465 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for procedural defaults: fixed and daily fines, capped to tax collectible, with delegated authority to impose them.
    Clause 465 creates a penalty regime for procedural non compliance under the Income Tax Bill, 2025: a fixed penalty for discrete defaults, a daily penalty for continuing defaults, a cap tying certain penalties to the amount of tax deductible or collectible, and specified authorities empowered to impose penalties; it broadens the definition of income tax authority and updates cross references to the restructured Bill, while notably omitting an explicit provision requiring an opportunity to be heard before penalty imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Ensuring Compliance Among Tax-Exempt Entities : Clause 464 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty regime for failure to furnish prescribed statements strengthens compliance under tax exempt reporting obligations.
    A statutory penalty regime targets failure by specified research institutions and charitable funds to furnish prescribed documents, statements, or certificates within prescribed timeframes; penalties fall within a prescribed band and are imposed at the discretion of the Assessing Officer, operating as a civil compliance measure alongside general procedural safeguards and requiring stakeholders to update compliance processes to align with re referenced substantive sections.
    Act RulesBills
    Professionals(i.e. Accountant, Marchant Banker, Registered Valuer) Accountability under Indian Incom...
    Show AI Summary
    Professional accountability: penalty for furnishing incorrect information in professional reports or certificates under the new income tax bill.
    Clause 463 imposes a strict-liability penalty regime on accountants, merchant bankers and registered valuers for furnishing incorrect information in any report or certificate under the Act or rules. It prescribes a fixed per-instance monetary penalty and empowers the Assessing Officer, Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) to impose the penalty upon satisfaction that incorrect information was furnished. The clause updates definitional references for valuers, omits an explicit definition of "accountant," and operates without prejudice to other civil or criminal consequences.
    Act RulesBills
    Enforcement of Information Disclosure in Cross-Border Transactions : Clause 462 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish information: fixed sanction for inaccurate or missing cross-border disclosure, raising proportionality concerns.
    Clause 462 penalises any person required to furnish information under section 397(3)(d) who fails to supply such information or furnishes inaccurate information; the Assessing Officer may impose a fixed monetary penalty, the provision mirrors Section 271I in structure and intent, lacks an express reasonable-cause defence or gradation of penalty, and raises interpretative issues as to the scope of "inaccurate information," procedural safeguards, and proportionality in enforcement.
    Act RulesBills
    Penalty Provisions for Non-Filing and Incorrect Filing of TDS/TCS Statements : Clause 461 of the Inc...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: discretionary fines with short grace period where tax is paid and statement filed promptly.
    Clause 461 creates a penalty for failure to deliver statements under section 397(3)(b) or for furnishing incorrect information, authorising the Assessing Officer to impose a discretionary monetary penalty equivalent in range to the existing Section 271H. Clause 461(2) exempts penalty where tax, fee and interest are paid to the Central Government and the statement is filed within a short grace period, thereby balancing deterrence with relief for prompt substantive compliance while leaving procedural safeguards and definitions, such as "incorrect information," unclearly specified.
    Act RulesBills
    Enforcement of Reporting Obligations by a non-resident having liaison office : Clause 460 of Income ...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to submit statements may be imposed by the assessing officer as a daily or capped sanction, discretion preserved.
    Clause 460 permits the Assessing Officer to impose discretionary monetary penalties on any person required to furnish a statement under section 505 for failure to file within the prescribed period, using a two-tier structure of a daily sanction for short-term delay and a capped penalty for longer default, with applicability dependent on the scope of the parent reporting obligation and subject to the general procedural and appellate framework of the tax law.
    Act RulesBills
    Penalties for Reporting Non-Compliance by Resident constituent entity of an international group unde...
    Show AI Summary
    Reporting penalties: new clause preserves escalating daily fines and a large fixed penalty for inaccurate international tax reports.
    Clause 459 establishes a tiered penalty regime under section 511 for reporting entities: daily penalties for failure to furnish reports, daily penalties for failure to produce information after the allowed period, an escalated daily penalty if default continues after service of a penalty order, and a substantial fixed penalty for furnishing inaccurate information or failing to correct known or discovered inaccuracies. The prescribed authority under section 511 is empowered to impose these penalties, and the clause mirrors Section 271GB in quantum and triggers while raising issues about reasonable cause relief and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Legal Implications of Non-Compliance with Reporting Requirements : Clause 458 of the Income Tax Bill...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to report transfers of management or control triggers significant compliance and enforcement consequences.
    Clause 458 creates a penalty for failure by an Indian concern to furnish information or documents under section 506, authorising the prescribed income-tax authority to impose either a transaction-value-based penalty where a transaction effects a direct or indirect transfer of management or control, or a fixed monetary penalty otherwise, and otherwise mirrors the substantive framework and enforcement objectives of Section 271GA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
    Act RulesBills
    Strengthening Transfer Pricing Enforcement : Clause 457 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 271...
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing documentation penalty: failure to furnish documents leads to transaction value based penalties and enforcement by tax authorities.
    Failure to furnish prescribed transfer pricing information or documentation for international or specified domestic transactions triggers a transaction value based penalty under Clause 457, enforceable by the Assessing Officer, authorised Transfer Pricing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals); the clause ties this enforcement directly to the obligations in section 171(2) and raises interpretive issues concerning the meaning of failure, computation of transaction value, overlap with other penalties, and the availability of a reasonable cause defence.
    Act RulesBills
    Compliance and Penalty Mechanisms for Investment Funds under Indian Tax Law : Clause 456 of the Inco...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: eligible investment funds face a fixed sanction under the bill; authority may impose it.
    Clause 456 imposes a fixed penalty where an eligible investment fund fails to furnish required statements or information within the prescribed time; the prescribed income-tax authority may direct payment of the fixed sanction. The reporting deadline is set by the substantive eligibility reporting provision; the penalty is discretionary rather than automatic, lacks a graded scale, and does not expressly specify procedural safeguards such as criteria for discretion or an opportunity to be heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Penalties for Inaccurate Financial Reporting under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 455 of the Income ...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for inaccurate financial reporting imposes institutional and account-holder liability while enabling recovery of penalties from account holders.
    Clause 455 mandates penalties for persons required to furnish statements of financial transactions or reportable accounts for providing inaccurate information or failing to meet due diligence obligations, and imposes an additional per-account penalty on reporting financial institutions where inaccuracies stem from account-holder-supplied false information; reporting institutions may recover such additional penalties from the responsible account holders by direct recovery or retention of funds, with imposition directed by the prescribed income-tax authority and substantive continuity with the former Section 271FAA.
    Act RulesBills
    Penalties for Non-Compliance in Financial Transaction Reporting : Clause 454 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish financial transaction statements - escalating daily sanctions for continued non-compliance after notice.
    Clause 454 creates a statutory penalty regime for failure to furnish a statement of financial transaction or reportable account, prescribing a daily penalty accruing from the date the filing deadline lapses, with an escalated daily rate where default continues after a formal notice, and vesting discretionary imposition authority in the income-tax authority subject to procedural safeguards and rights to challenge.
    Act RulesBills
    Penalty Provisions for Non-compliant Loan Repayments in India's Income Tax Law : Clause 453 of the I...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non-compliant loan repayments: Assessing Officer may impose a penalty equal to the amount repaid for procedural breaches.
    Clause 453 permits the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to any loan, deposit or specified advance repaid in contravention of section 188, applying to all persons and covering repayments made by non-transparent modes. The provision creates strict liability based on procedural breach rather than mens rea, centralizes enforcement with the Assessing Officer, and omits an explicit reasonable-cause defence, raising potential interpretative and transitional issues regarding the scope of specified advances and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Mandatory Electronic Payments and Penalty Regimes : Clause 452 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic payment mandate triggers daily penalties for non compliance unless a taxpayer proves good and sufficient reason.
    Clause 452 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed per day monetary penalty for failure to provide prescribed electronic modes of payment under section 187, subject to a saving where the person proves good and sufficient reason for the failure; the provision mirrors the former section 271DB framework but streamlines authority and lacks detailed procedural guidance.
    Act RulesBills
    Evolving Penalty Regimes for Monetary Transaction Violations : Clause 451 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Show AI Summary
    Monetary transaction penalty: discretion to impose a penalty equal to prohibited receipt unless good and sufficient reasons are proved.
    Clause 451 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the sum received in contravention of section 186 unless the recipient proves good and sufficient reasons; the provision emphasises proportionality, vests discretion in enforcement, omits explicit procedural safeguards and mens rea, and mirrors the substantive penalty quantum and defence in the earlier statutory regime while differing in statutory tone and procedural concision.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Home› TMI Notes › Income Tax › Case-Laws › Category › This
      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Income Tax

      Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis

      20 August, 2024

      Contents
      Rules & Regulations
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Print Options

      Comprehensive Analysis of the Judgement on Technical Services under Tax Treaty

      Reported as:

      2024 (3) TMI 620 - DELHI HIGH COURT

      Introduction

      This article provides a detailed analysis of a recent judgement by the Delhi High Court concerning the interpretation of the term "technical services" under the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The case involved a dispute between the Income Tax Department and Salesforce.com Ireland Limited (SFDC Ireland), a company engaged in the business of providing customer relationship management (CRM) software and related services.

      Arguments Presented

      Assessee's Arguments

      SFDC Ireland contended that the payments received from its Indian subsidiary, SFDC India, were not in the nature of "fees for technical services" under Article 12(3)(b) of the India-Ireland DTAA. The company argued that it was merely selling standard, off-the-shelf, non-customized software products to SFDC India, which acted as a reseller in the Indian territory. The technical assistance and training provided to SFDC India were incidental to the sale of the software products and did not constitute the rendering of technical services.

      Revenue's Arguments

      The Income Tax Department argued that SFDC Ireland was providing comprehensive services and solutions with the help of technology embedded in the software. The department contended that the payments received by SFDC Ireland were in the nature of "fees for technical services" and subject to withholding tax under the DTAA.

      Discussions and Findings of the Court

      Interpretation of "Technical Services"

      The court extensively discussed the interpretation of the term "technical services" under the DTAA and relevant case laws. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in C.I.T. -4, Mumbai Versus M/s Kotak Securities Ltd. - 2016 (3) TMI 1026 - Supreme Court., which held that the use of a facility does not amount to technical services, as technical services denote services catering to the special needs of the person using them.

      The court also relied on the United Nations Handbook on Selected Issues in Administration of Double Tax Treaties, which provided guidance on the interpretation of "technical services." The Handbook emphasized that technical services must involve the application of specialized knowledge, skill, or expertise by the service provider on behalf of a client or the transfer of such knowledge, skill, or expertise to the client.

      Analysis of the Reseller Agreement

      The court analyzed the terms of the Reseller Agreement between SFDC Ireland and SFDC India. It found that the agreement did not contemplate any technology transfer to SFDC India. SFDC India was merely designated as a reseller to engage with and onboard customers within the territory for the use of SFDC products.

      The technical assistance and training provided by SFDC Ireland were aimed at enabling SFDC India's staff to understand the attributes and capabilities of SFDC products for marketing purposes. The court held that such training and assistance did not constitute the conferral of specialized or exclusive technical services.

      Customization and Individualization

      The court observed that the respondent (Income Tax Department) failed to establish that SFDC Ireland was providing customized or specially designed software solutions to its customers. The impugned order did not advert to any material indicating that the supply of SFDC products departed from a standard scope of services.

      The court emphasized that in order to fall within the ambit of "fees for technical services," it was incumbent upon the respondents to establish an indelible link between the payment received by SFDC Ireland and the consideration for providing customized technical services.

      Analysis and Decision by the Court

      Doctrine of Noscitur a Sociis

      The court applied the principle of noscitur a sociis, which means that words should be interpreted in the context of the words associated with them. The phrase "technical service" was to be read in conjunction with "managerial" and "consultation" services, as mentioned in the DTAA.

      Lack of Evidence for Technical Services

      The court found that the respondents failed to evaluate the claim for withholding tax on the touchstone of whether the remittances made to SFDC Ireland constituted consideration for customized technical services. The impugned order did not proceed based on any material or evidence indicating that the moneys remitted to the assessee could be said to constitute consideration for technical services.

      Remittance Based on Reseller's Net Revenue

      The court noted that the purchase price paid by SFDC India to SFDC Ireland was based on the Reseller's Net Revenue, as per Exhibit A of the Reseller Agreement. The various streams and heads of revenue of SFDC India, including earnings from customization or individualization of the SFDC suite of products, if any, did not appear to have been examined by the respondents.

      Decision

      The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 16 October 2023 and the certification dated 18 October 2023. The matter was remitted to the respondent for considering SFDC Ireland's application afresh, bearing in mind the court's observations, particularly those highlighted in paragraphs 48 and 49 of the judgement.

      Doctrine or Legal Principle Discussed

      The key legal principle discussed in the judgement is the interpretation of the term "technical services" under the India-Ireland DTAA. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. and the guidance provided by the United Nations Handbook on Selected Issues in Administration of Double Tax Treaties to establish the criteria for determining whether a service constitutes a "technical service" under the DTAA.

      Comprehensive Summary of the Judgement

      The Delhi High Court, in this judgement, provided a comprehensive analysis of the interpretation of the term "technical services" under the India-Ireland DTAA. The court emphasized that for a service to be considered a "technical service," it must involve the application of specialized knowledge, skill, or expertise by the service provider on behalf of a client or the transfer of such knowledge, skill, or expertise to the client.

      The court analyzed the Reseller Agreement between SFDC Ireland and SFDC India and found that the technical assistance and training provided by SFDC Ireland were aimed at enabling SFDC India's staff to understand the attributes and capabilities of SFDC products for marketing purposes. Such training and assistance did not constitute the conferral of specialized or exclusive technical services.

      The court also noted that the respondents failed to establish that SFDC Ireland was providing customized or specially designed software solutions to its customers. The impugned order did not advert to any material indicating that the supply of SFDC products departed from a standard scope of services.

      Furthermore, the court observed that the respondents did not evaluate the claim for withholding tax on the touchstone of whether the remittances made to SFDC Ireland constituted consideration for customized technical services. The purchase price paid by SFDC India to SFDC Ireland was based on the Reseller's Net Revenue, and the various streams and heads of revenue of SFDC India were not examined.

      Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order, remitting the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration in light of the court's observations.

       

      Full Text:

      2024 (3) TMI 620 - DELHI HIGH COURT

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax
      Next ➔