This compilation indexes 12 rulings — spanning ITAT benches at Delhi, Dehradun, and Lucknow, and High Courts at Bombay, Delhi, and Karnataka — that engaged Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, between August 2025 and June 2026. The disputes range from the classification of reimbursements as fees for technical services (FTS), the interplay of Section 9(1)(vii) with tax-treaty provisions, the overlap with Section 9(1)(vi) in software-related payments, and the procedural question of nil withholding certificates. This index is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured starting point for locating relevant judgments on FTS taxability under Indian domestic law.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference, not legal or tax advice. Readers must verify each ruling against the full judgment text and consult qualified professionals before relying on any case for compliance or litigation purposes.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 deems income by way of fees for technical services to accrue or arise in India where it is payable by a resident (except where the services are utilised in a business carried on outside India or for earning income from a source outside India) or by a non-resident where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on in India or for earning income from a source in India. The expression "fees for technical services" is defined in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) to mean any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical, or consultancy services, but does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining, or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which is taxable under the head "Salaries." The provision is central to the taxation of cross-border service payments and frequently intersects with tax-treaty provisions (Article 12 or equivalent FTS/Royalty articles) under Section 90, as well as with TDS obligations under Section 195.

The 12 rulings

1. S&P Global Ratings Singapore Pte vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 15 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143, 144C(13), 270A, 9(1)(vii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 761/Del/2025) was filed by the assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 09.01.2025 passed under Section 143 read with Section 144C(13), pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi order dated 21.12.2024, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The source preview is procedural in nature and does not disclose the substantive findings reached by the Tribunal on the merits of the Section 9(1)(vii) or Section 270A grounds.

2. DCIT,Circle-7(1), Delhi, Delhi vs Fieldcore Service Solutions

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 10 June 2026
Sections engaged: 40(a), 9(1)(vii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 904/Del/2026) for Assessment Year 2015-16 arose from an order passed under Section 250 by NFAC, Delhi. According to the source preview, the Assessing Officer noted that certain payments made by the assessee for travel and conveyance reimbursement were considered to be in the nature of fees for technical services within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, and found that tax was required to be deducted at source on such payments; since the assessee had failed to do so, the disallowance consequence under Section 40(a) was invoked. The substantive findings of the Tribunal on the merits are not disclosed in the available source preview.

3. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun vs Gaffney Cline & Associates Limited

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dehradun
Date: 15 April 2026
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vii), 44B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Revenue appeal (ITA No. 197/DDN/2025) for Assessment Year 2021-22 arose against the order of CIT(A)-Noida-2 dated 29.08.2025 (DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080180775(1)), with the underlying assessment proceedings involving Section 143(3). The source preview indicates that the respondent assessee, Gaffney Cline & Associates Limited, was engaged in work relating to oil block production and development activities across multiple jurisdictions; however, the preview is truncated and does not disclose the Tribunal's substantive findings on the Section 9(1)(vii) ground.

4. Benteler Automotive China Investment vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 27 March 2026
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vii), 90
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter came before the Bombay High Court as Writ Petition No. 11074 of 2025, filed by a petitioner incorporated in the People's Republic of China challenging proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (IT), Circle-1, Pune, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (IT&TP), Pune. The petition engages both Section 9(1)(vii) and Section 90, suggesting an intersection of domestic FTS taxability with treaty relief. The source preview is procedural in nature and does not disclose the substantive findings or the final order of the High Court.

5. Nord Anglia Education Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 14 January 2026
Sections engaged: 197, 195(3), 9(1)(vii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This petition (W.P.(C) 13473/2025) was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 09.06.2025 and a certificate dated 30.07.2025 issued by the respondent Revenue, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 197 read with Section 195(3) seeking issuance of a Nil Withholding Certificate was rejected. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom engaged in providing international education, extends management and administrative support services — including marketing and communication, human resources, finance, IT, and corporate development — to its Indian subsidiary, Nord Anglia Education India Pvt. Ltd.; the characterisation of such receipts under Section 9(1)(vii) appears to be the central issue bearing on the nil withholding application.

6. Dy. Commississioner Of Income Tax vs Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dehradun
Date: 28 October 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 44B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These six consolidated Revenue appeals (ITA Nos. 163 to 168/DDN/2024) cover Assessment Years 2016-17 through 2021-22, and arise against orders of CIT(A)-Noida-2, Delhi dated 31.07.2024. The appeals involve identical or similar issues across the six years and concern the taxability of payments to Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Limited, engaging both Section 9(1)(vi) and Section 9(1)(vii) as well as Section 44B. The source preview is largely introductory and does not disclose the Tribunal's substantive findings on the merits.

7. Pr., Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Charles River Laboratories Inc

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 9 September 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 654 of 2023) was filed before the Karnataka High Court under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the order dated 01.06.2023 passed in IT(IT)A No. 88/BANG/2023 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Bangalore, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue sought to decide a question of law relating to Section 9(1)(vii) and to set aside the ITAT appellate order; the appeal was listed for admission. The source preview does not disclose the substantive question of law framed or the final order of the High Court.

8. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Goldman Sachs Service Pvt Ltd

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 3 September 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter comprised four consolidated Income Tax Appeals (ITA Nos. 121, 124, 125, and 126 of 2024) filed before the Karnataka High Court under Section 260-A, arising out of the ITAT order dated 29.04.2022 passed in IT(IT)A No. 366/BANG/2020 for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Revenue appellants sought a determination of a question of law concerning Section 9(1)(vii) and the setting aside of the ITAT order in the case of Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCG2435N), Helios Business Park, Bangalore. The source preview does not disclose the specific question of law framed or the final disposition.

9. Assistant Commissioner Of Income vs M.K.U Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Date: 29 August 2025
Sections engaged: 147, 148, 9(1)(vii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 509/LKW/2018) and an accompanying Cross Objection (C.O. No. 23/LKW/2018) for Assessment Year 2011-12 were filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively against the order of CIT(A)-2, Kanpur dated 26.03.2018, wherein the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeals against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with Section 144. The cross objection was noted to be delayed by 99 days and the assessee filed an application with a supporting affidavit in respect of the delay. The source preview does not disclose the Tribunal's findings on the Section 9(1)(vii) ground raised in the proceedings.

10. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ibm Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 20 August 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 664 of 2023) was filed before the Karnataka High Court under Section 260-A, arising out of the ITAT 'C' Bench, Bangalore order dated 11.10.2021 passed in ITA No. 409/BANG/2018, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue sought to have a question of law decided concerning both Section 9(1)(vi) and Section 9(1)(vii) in the case of IBM Singapore Pte Ltd (PAN: AACCI2917B). The source preview records that the appeal came on for orders and that an oral judgment was delivered, but does not reproduce the substantive findings.

11. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Altair Engineering Inc

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 12 August 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 708 of 2023) was filed before the Karnataka High Court under Section 260-A, arising out of the order dated 07.02.2023 passed in IT(IT)A No. 844/BANG/2022 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Bangalore, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Revenue sought to decide a question of law concerning Section 9(1)(vii) and to set aside the ITAT appellate order in the case of Altair Engineering Inc (Troy, Michigan, United States). The appeal was listed for admission and the source preview does not disclose the substantive question framed or the final order.

12. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ibm Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 12 August 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter comprised three consolidated Income Tax Appeals (ITA Nos. 681, 682, and 683 of 2023) filed before the Karnataka High Court under Section 260-A, arising out of the ITAT 'B' Bench, Bangalore order dated 03.09.2021 passed in ITA No. 1313/BANG/2018, for Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Revenue sought a determination of a question of law relating to both Section 9(1)(vi) and Section 9(1)(vii) in the case of IBM Singapore Pte Ltd (PAN: AACC12917B). The source preview does not reproduce the specific question of law framed or the outcome of the High Court proceedings.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 9(1)(vii) as a standalone and combined ground. Several rulings engage Section 9(1)(vii) in isolation (cases 7, 8, 9, 11), while others combine it with Section 9(1)(vi) (cases 6, 10, 12) or with provisions such as Section 40(a), Section 44B, Section 90, and Section 197/195(3). This reflects the frequency with which FTS characterisation interacts with related questions of royalty classification, gross-basis taxation of non-residents, treaty relief, and TDS compliance.
Karnataka High Court as a recurring forum. Five of the twelve rulings (cases 7, 8, 10, 11, 12) are Section 260-A income-tax appeals decided by the Karnataka High Court between August and September 2025, all involving international taxation disputes. This clustering suggests that Karnataka High Court jurisprudence on Section 9(1)(vii) may be particularly active in the 2025–2026 period, and researchers should track that court's docket carefully for this issue.
Revenue as the appellant in High Court proceedings. In all five Karnataka High Court cases and the Bombay High Court writ petition, the Revenue (or its officers) is either the appellant or the respondent challenging a tribunal order favourable to the assessee. This pattern indicates that ITAT benches have frequently ruled against FTS characterisation at the first appellate level, prompting Revenue to escalate to High Courts on questions of law.
Reimbursements and the FTS classification question. Case 2 (Fieldcore Service Solutions) explicitly raises the question of whether travel and conveyance reimbursements constitute fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii), a classification dispute that has recurred in Indian tax litigation. Similarly, case 5 (Nord Anglia) raises whether management and administrative support services rendered by a foreign parent to its Indian subsidiary fall within the FTS definition, as the characterisation directly governed the nil withholding certificate application.
Procedural preview limitation. Across all 12 cases, the available source previews are predominantly procedural — recording parties, ITA/ITO numbers, dates, and preliminary observations — without disclosing the dispositive findings. Researchers should treat this compilation as an entry-point locator and retrieve the full judgment text from the source portals for substantive analysis.

How to use this compilation

This index is organised by case number corresponding to the order in which the rulings appear in the underlying corpus. To use it effectively, start by identifying the sub-question you are researching — for example, whether a specific category of payment (reimbursement, management fee, software licence) is likely to be characterised as fees for technical services, or whether a particular treaty provision modifies the Section 9(1)(vii) analysis. Cases engaging the same combination of sections (e.g. Section 9(1)(vi) alongside Section 9(1)(vii)) are particularly relevant where the payment has a potential royalty character.

Once you have identified relevant cases from this index, retrieve the full judgment text from indiankanoon.org or the official court portal using the ITA or ITO number listed in the source preview. Before relying on any ruling, verify whether it has been stayed, reversed on further appeal, or distinguished in a subsequent judgment. High Court decisions under Section 260-A are decisions on questions of law and bind ITAT benches within the jurisdiction; however, conflicting High Court rulings across circuits are common on FTS questions, and the Supreme Court's position on specific payment categories should be checked independently.

Finally, cross-reference the judicial position with current CBDT circulars, press releases, and instruction notes, as administrative guidance can affect the operational interpretation of Section 9(1)(vii) even where the statutory text and case law position may appear settled. Assessment years covered by the rulings in this compilation range from AY 2011-12 through AY 2022-23, and the legal and treaty landscape may have evolved between those years and the current assessment year.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 9(1)(vii) FTS Taxability: 12 ITAT and HC Rulings (2025–2026)