Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Alten Global Technologies (ITAT Bangalore)
Summary : The appeal before the ITAT Bangalore was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 02.07.2025 for Assessment Year 2020-21. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order.
The Revenue challenged the deletion of various disallowances made under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The issues raised included payments made to Accord North America LLC, USA, which the Assessing Officer alleged were taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Fees for Included Services (FIS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) incorrectly classified the services as managerial in nature and held that tax deduction at source under Section 195 was not required.
The Revenue also challenged the deletion of disallowances relating to exhibition and stall charges paid to Farnborough International Ltd., UK, testing services paid to Accord Technology LLC, USA, and payments relating to payroll, tax consultation, work permits, and visa-related services for branches in Germany and the UK. According to the Revenue, these services were taxable in India and attracted TDS obligations under Section 195.
The registry noted that the appeal before the Tribunal had been filed with a delay. Though the appellate order had been received by the Assessing Officer on 02.07.2025, the appeal was filed only on 21.11.2025. The Assessing Officer submitted an application seeking condonation of delay. In the application, it was stated that the delay occurred due to “pressing time barring matters and other miscellaneous works.” The application described the delay as 82 days and requested condonation on the ground that the reasons were unintentional and unavoidable.
The Senior Departmental Representative argued that the delay had occurred due to sufficient cause and requested the Tribunal to condone the delay.
No representative appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the issue of condonation of delay based on the material available on record.
After examining the submissions and the condonation application, the Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had not provided adequate justification for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the precise duration of delay had been inaccurately stated in the application. The explanation referring to pressing deadlines and miscellaneous work was found insufficient because such responsibilities were considered inherent to the duties of the concerned officer.
The Tribunal held that no sufficient cause had been shown for condonation of delay. Consequently, the delay was not condoned and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the ground of failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delayed filing.
The order was pronounced in open court on 07.04.2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
1. ITA 2673/Bangalore/2025 was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru, against M/s. Alten Global Technologies Private Limited (Assessee) for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The Appeal challenges the order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 02.07.2025, which allowed the Assessee’s Appeal against the Assessment Order from the Assessing Officer.
2. The Ld. Assessing Officer is aggrieved and has raised the following grounds:
i. Whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) concerning payments made to Accord North America LLC, USA, by incorrectly classifying the services as managerial rather than taxable as FTS/FIS under Section 9(1)(vii) or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA, without duly considering that the services were technical or consultancy in nature and taxable in India, thereby necessitating TDS under section 195.
ii. Whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of payments made to Farnborough International Ltd., UK, by concluding, incorrectly, that exhibition/stall charges do not constitute consultancy or managerial services, while disregarding the applicability of section 9(1)(vii) and the resulting TDS obligation.
iii. Whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance towards testing services paid to Accord Technology LLC, USA, by misapplying the “make available” test under Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA and failing to consider that these services constituted technical services taxable u/s. 9(1)(vii).
iv. Whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowances relating to payroll, tax consultation, work permit, and visa-related services for the assessee’s branches in Germany and the UK, by incorrectly applying section 9(1)(vii)(b) and relevant DTAA provisions, without recognizing that such services pertain to the business of the Indian entity and are taxable in India, thus attracting TDS u/s. 195.
3. The registry notes this Appeal is 52 days late; the Appellate Order was received by the Assessing Officer on 02.07.2025, but the Appeal was filed on 21.11.2025.
4. The application for condonation of delay submitted by the Ld. Assessing Officer is as under: –
“To,
The Assistant Registrar,
No. 51, Behind Jal Bhavan
1 st Cross 4th T’ Block Tilak Nagar
Bangalore 560041
Sir/Madam,
Sub: Date:21.11.2025 Request for seeking condonation of delay in filing of Appeals before the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of ALTEN GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED (PAN: AAOCA4054D) for the AY 2020-21 against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)- Reg *******
The condonation of delay may kindly be granted for filing of Appeals before the Hon ble ITAT in the case of ALTEN GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED (PAN: AAOCA4054D) for the AY 2020-21 against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078123551(1)) dated 02/07/2025 for the unintentional and unavoidable reasons mentioned here under:
Due to pressing time barring matters and other miscellaneous works, the filing of appeal is delayed by 82 days.
As such, under the circumstances, I humbly pray for the condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT in the sąid case for the assessment year 2020-21.
Yours faithfully,
Pela (Pakkiresh Badami, IRS1/5 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)(1), Bengaluru
Copy to: 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1(1), Bengaluru.”
5. The senior departmental representative stated that the delay was due to sufficient cause and requested it be condoned.
6. No representative appeared on behalf of the Assessee; consequently, the Appeal regarding the condonation of delay by the Ld. Assessing Officer has been adjudicated based on the information available in the record
7. We have thoroughly reviewed the submissions presented by the senior departmental representative, as well as examined the application for condonation of delay submitted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Upon analysis, we observe that the Ld. Assessing Officer has not provided adequate justification for the late filing of the Appeal, and the precise duration of the delay is also inaccurately stated. The explanation offered cites pressing deadlines and miscellaneous tasks; however, these responsibilities are inherent to the role of the SSC officer. Accordingly, we find no sufficient grounds to condone the delay incurred in the filing of the Appeal.
8. The appeal filed by the Ld. Assessing Officer has been dismissed due to the failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing. Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed
Order pronounced in the open court on 07th April, 2026.
Author Bio
