PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. M/S. IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
- Para 1010. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned ITAT had held that given the nature of the disputes, clearly, two views are possible. Thus, the penalty under Section 270-A of the Act could not be levied, as the question involved was a vexed one. The Assessee…
Judgment
BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN IT(IT)A NO.541/BANG/2024 FIR A.Y.2019-20 (ANNEXURE - A) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE)
#1. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
#2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 20.05.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], in a batch of appeals.
#3. The present appeal is confined to the impugned order insofar as it relates to IT(IT)A.No.541/Bang/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2019-20. The Assessee – a company which is a tax resident in Australia – had filed its return of income - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29877-DB ITA No. 10 of 2025 HC-KAR tax on 29.11.2018 for AY 2019-20, declaring `35,00,630/- as taxable income.
#4. The Assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of the assessment, it was found that the Assessee had received a sum of `59,41,56,568/- from M/s. IBM India Limited [IBM India], a company incorporated in India, towards IT support services, including recovery of salary expenses of the employees that were seconded to IBM India. The dispute essentially relates to whether the said receipts are chargeable to tax as 'fee for technical services' [FTS] under Section 9 (1)(vii) of the Act or Business profits under India - Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [the DTAA].
#5. It is the Assessee's case that the reimbursement of salary expenses and payment towards IT support services do not come under the FTS. Admittedly, the contentions advanced by the Assessee are not insubstantial.
#6. The question whether such receipts would fall within the scope of FTS, has been the subject matter of various decisions. Largely, the weight of judicial precedents is that such proceeds - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29877-DB ITA No. 10 of 2025 HC-KAR would not fall within the scope of FTS. The learned Tribunal has set out a tabular statement as referred to by the Assessee, which indicates the various decisions where such issues have been considered and the outcome of the said decisions. The said tabular statement is reproduced below. "3.12 They drew our attention to the table capturing various Courts/ Tribunal decisions on said issue in a chronological order, which is as follows: Sl No. Case law with Citation Favourable /unfavourable Forum Date of pronouncement
#1. DET vs HCL Favourable Delhi HC 6 January 2004
#3. Infosystems Limited [2005] 144 Taxman 492 followed - Karnataka HC in Abbey case Storz Karl Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA 13 No 2008)(Delhi HC) (refer page 199- 201 of PB) Abbey Business India Services Pvt (23 Taxmann.com later on 346) - confirmed Karnataka High Court Ltd Favourable Delhi HC September 13 2010 Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012
#4. Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited Favourable Mumbai ITAT 4 2013 September - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29877-DB ITA No. 10 of 2025 Unfavourable Delhi HC 25 April 2014 Favourable Bombay HC 3 May 2017 Favourable Mumbai ITAT 6 July 2018 Favourable Pune ITAT 8 July 2019 Favourable Karnataka HC 1 December 2020 HC-KAR [2013] 38 taxmann.com 190 (Mumbai - Trib) (refer page 202- 213 of PB) India Centrica Offshore (P) Ltd [2014] 44 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi) Marks & Spencer India Reliance Private Limited [2017] ITA No 893 of 2014 (Bom HC) (refer page 214-216 of PB) Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Pte Ltd vs DDIT [2018] 95 taxmann.com 165 (Mumbai ITAT); Faurecia M/s Automotive Holding vs DCIT (ITA No 784/PUN/2015) (Pune ITAT) DIT vs Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd [2020] [22 taxmann.com 174 (Karnataka)
#10. Toyota Boshoku [2022] vs DCIT Favourable Bangalore ITAT 13 April 2022 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:29877-DB ITA No. 10 of 2025 HC-KAR 138 taxmann.com 166 (Bangalore - Trib)
#11. Goldman Sachs vs DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 162
#12. Northern Operating system Pvt Ltd CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2289- 2293 OF 2021 Favourable Bangalore ITAT 29 April 2022 Under service tax law, not in the context of income-tax Supreme Court 19 May 2022
#13. Flipkart Internet Favourable Karnataka HC 24 June 2022 Favourable Delhi HC 11 October 2022
#15. Google LLC vs Favourable Bangalore ITAT 20 February 2023 Favourable Delhi ITAT 20 June 2023 (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 595 14. Delhi HC in Boeing India Pvt Ltd [2023] 146 taxmann.com 131(Delhi) ( refer page 193- 198 of PB) JCIT(OSDYDCIT (I) [(IT)Appeal Nos 167/Bang/2021 & 688/Bang/2022] Ernst & Young US LLP [2023] 153 laxmann.com 95 (Delhi-Trib) (refer page 183 - 192 of PB 16 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:29877-DB ITA No. 10 of 2025 HC-KAR
#17. Central Circle vs M/s Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd [ITA No. 1031/Chny/2022] (refer page 217- 222 of PB) Favourable Distinguishing Northern Operating System (Supra) Chennai ITAT 9 October 2023
#7. Whilst various courts and tribunals had accepted contentions as are advanced by the Assessee, the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Centrica India Offshore Private Limited v. CIT : [2014] 44 taxmann.com 300, had taken a view that in the facts, secondment of the employees would result absorption of knowledge by the entity to whom such employees had been seconded.
#8. Given the possible view, the Assessee had, to avoid further litigation, opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had settled the issue regarding the levy of tax.
#9. The present appeal relates to the imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal and the learned ITAT had examined the nature of the disputes and had further noted that the decision of this Court in Flipkart Internet (P). Limited v. DCIT International Taxation : [2022] 139 taxmann.com 595, had - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:29877-DB ITA No. 10 of 2025 HC-KAR favoured the Assessee. Further, in proceedings relating to withholding of tax at source in case of IBM India, the stand that the payments were not chargeable to tax had been accepted.
#10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned ITAT had held that given the nature of the disputes, clearly, two views are possible. Thus, the penalty under Section 270-A of the Act could not be levied, as the question involved was a vexed one. The Assessee had laboured under the legitimate bona fide belief that the payments received were not taxable under the Act. We find no infirmity in the said order and no substantial question of law exists for consideration by this court.
#11. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 01 Aug 2025. The bench was C M JOSHI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.