Introduction
The Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (Tribunal’), in its recent judgment in Tungsten Network Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax[i], has clarified that the deeming rule under s. 9(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(‘Act’) shall only apply when the primary sourcing rule under s. 5(2) of the act is not satisfied. This judgment provides significant clarity on the tax liability of a non-resident assessee when the income source is in India.
Brief Facts
M/s. Tungsten Network Ltd. (‘Assessee’), a foreign company taxable in the UK, had received approximately Rs. 1.46 crores and Rs. 1.47 crores from Genpact India Pvt. Ltd during the assessment year (‘A.Y.’) 2016-17 towards services related to converting raw data into e-form.
The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order dated 12.03.2024, treating total income of Rs. 2,93,92,810 as a ‘ fee for technical services to be taxed @ 10%’. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the Assessee filed appeals for A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18, seeking adjudication on whether a non-resident assessee earning income from an Indian source is liable to tax in India.
Held
The Tribunal, after examining the Assessee’s arguments, held that the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) protection does not apply in this case, as the income qualifies as fees for technical services (FTS) under both the DTAA and the Act. However, the income was chargeable in India as it is derived from a service provided to a business in India. To dismiss both the appeals, the Tribunal relied upon the below-mentioned judgments.
In GVK Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax officer[ii], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that terms like managerial, technical and consultancy are not defined in the Act. However, in the absence of such a definition, the common and general meaning of the words should be taken into consideration. The court also held that the income of receipt is chargeable where the source of payment is located, i.e., where the payer is located. Under the primary source rule under s. 5(2) of the Act, the income received by the Assessee company accrues or arises in India, as the payer is situated in India. Further, the reference to the deeming rules under s. 9 of the Act shall only be made when the primary sourcing rules fail to establish the chargeability.
Our Analysis
This judgment reinforces India’s approach to source-based taxation, affirming that a non-resident’s income is taxable if the payer is in India and the services rendered qualify as technical services. The Tribunal clarified that DTAA protection is not absolute; if the income falls under FTS, it remains chargeable under Indian tax laws.
End Notes
[i] [2025] 170 taxmann.com 310 (Delhi - Trib.).
[ii] [2015] 54 taxmann.com 347 (SC).
Authored by Arjun Singh Tamang, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.