Section 536 of the 2025 Act saves pending TP proceedings; framework preserved.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Section 115A is part of Chapter XI - Special Tax Regimes — the special tax regimes framework framework of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provision establishes operative rules within the comprehensive special tax regimes framework architecture.
The section operates in coordination with companion provisions in the same chapter and related chapters of the Act. Practitioner-relevant — verbatim text (Block 1) sets out operative language; parallel-provisions table (Block 2) maps to 1961 Act + 2025 Act framework + companion Rules / Forms.
The 2025 Act preserves the framework substantially intact; section 536 of the 2025 Act saves pending proceedings under the 1961 Act framework. Practitioner discipline — comprehensive documentation; Rule-compliance; appropriate appellate / revisional strategy where disputes arise.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves the TP framework substantively intact; pending TPO / DRP / APA / MAP proceedings continue under section 536 saving.
FINANCE ACT AMENDMENT TIMELINE
■ Income-tax Act 1961 — Original provision framework.
■ Finance Act 1989 — Major restructuring across many chapters.
▸ Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 ; (2000) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court)
Facts. A municipal levy was challenged on the ground that the charging provision did not clearly specify the rate, the persons charged, and the measure of tax.
Issue. Whether a tax can be imposed in the absence of a clear, unambiguous charging provision identifying the subject, measure, rate, and incidence.
HELD. Article 265 demands that tax be levied only by clear authority of law. The four components — taxable event, person, rate, and measure — must be clearly discernible from the charging provision; ambiguity is fatal to the levy.
“The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions, particularly when the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose other than what is given expression to.”
Relevance. Foundational authority on the rigour required of charging sections — underpins arguments that ambiguous deeming fictions, surcharge formulas, and rate prescriptions must be strictly construed.
Facts. The Department sought to apply a surcharge provision retrospectively to block-period assessments. The assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and could not have retrospective operation absent express legislative direction.
Issue. Whether amendments to taxing statutes operate prospectively unless the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication conferred retrospective effect.
HELD. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the general rule against retrospectivity of taxing statutes. A taxing provision must be construed prospectively unless the language compels otherwise; mere insertion or substitution by amendment is not sufficient to deny vested rights.
“Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for any argument that an amendment to a charging or computational provision must apply only from the AY notified — useful in transitional disputes around FA 2025 and the 1961 → 2025 changeover.
Facts. Section 52(2) (since deleted) deemed sale consideration to be FMV where FMV exceeded the declared consideration by 15%. The Department applied it on a literal reading even when the assessee had not in fact received more than the declared price.
Issue. Whether a deeming provision in a charging schema can be construed literally where its plain reading produces a result manifestly contrary to legislative object.
HELD. The Court read down section 52(2) to apply only where the assessee had actually received consideration in excess of the declared sum. A literal construction yielding absurd or unjust results must yield to an object-based interpretation; the CBDT's contemporaneous Circular No. 96 was held binding on the Revenue.
“It is well settled that a literal construction of a statutory provision ought not to be adopted if it produces a manifestly unjust result… Where a literal construction creates an anomaly, the courts will adopt that construction which avoids the anomaly.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for purposive construction of deeming fictions across the 1961 Act — applies wherever a deeming clause (e.g., s. 50C, s. 56(2)(x), s. 2(22)(e)) yields a result contrary to legislative purpose.
▸ Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2000) 243 ITR 83 ; (2000) 2 SCC 718 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The CIT exercised section 263 revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an assessment order; the assessee challenged the revision on the ground that the order, even if erroneous, was not prejudicial to revenue, and alternatively that the CIT had not satisfied the twin tests.
Issue. Twin conditions for section 263 revision — what does 'erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue' require?
HELD. Both conditions must be conjunctively satisfied: (i) the order must be erroneous in fact or law; and (ii) it must result in prejudice to revenue. An order is erroneous if based on incorrect facts, incorrect law, or made without proper inquiry; mere loss of revenue does not satisfy the prejudice test.
“The expression 'erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. Both the elements must be conjunctively present.”
Relevance. Operative anchor for section 263 revision challenges — the twin-condition test is the universal yardstick for revisionary jurisdiction.
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 ; (2010) 11 SCC 762 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The assessee claimed deduction of interest on borrowings used for investment in shares yielding tax-free dividend. The deduction was disallowed under section 14A. The Department levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment / inaccurate particulars.
Issue. Whether a mere disallowance of a deduction — without any falsehood in the particulars furnished — attracts penalty under section 271(1)(c).
HELD. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted merely because a claim for deduction is disallowed. The assessee's claim must be shown to be false, frivolous, or made without bona fides; mere unsustainability does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
“A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars.”
Relevance. Cornerstone authority for resisting penalty under section 271(1)(c) / section 270A — applies to disallowed deductions, transfer-pricing adjustments, head-of-income re-characterisations where a bona-fide claim was made.
CBDT CIRCULARS — ECOSYSTEM
▸ CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11 April 1955
Subject. Duty of officers to assist assessees in claiming and securing relief
Substance. Foundational circular directing that the AO should not exploit assessee ignorance to deny legitimate reliefs; officer is required to draw attention to refunds or reliefs to which the assessee is entitled. The circular has been judicially noted in several appellate decisions and remains operative for first-appellate practice.
Substance. Explained the FA 1987 / FA 1989 amendments unifying the previous year with the financial year preceding the AY, including transitional provisions for assessees with different accounting years. Useful in any controversy on the timing of accrual / chargeability for early post-1989 AYs.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11 February 2014
Subject. Section 14A — dis-allowance even where no exempt income earned (since modulated)
Substance. Initially directed AOs to apply Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A even where no exempt income was earned in the year; subsequently modulated by Cheminvest (Del HC) and Maxopp (SC). FA 2022 amendment to section 14A re-asserted the position but remains under litigation.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2019 dated 20 March 2019
Subject. Withdrawal of low-tax-effect appeals — monetary thresholds
Substance. Revised monetary thresholds for departmental appeals — ITAT (Rs 50L), HC (Rs 1 Cr), SC (Rs 2 Cr); subsequently further revised. Operates as a non-statutory limitation on the Revenue's appellate engagement, binding under section 119.
Substance. Procedural guidance for AOs handling transitional reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 affected by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Sets out the form of section 148A inquiry, time-bar calculation under TOLA, and JAO/FAO jurisdiction in faceless cases.
WORKED EXAMPLES
Illustration — Illustration 1 — Standard 115A application
SECTION 115A — TAX ON DIVIDENDS, ROYALTY AND TECHNICAL SERVICE FEES IN THE CASE OF FOREIGN COMPANIES
Case Laws & Commentary (Income-tax Act, 1961 as amended by Finance Act, 2026)
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
A.1 Structural position & legislative purpose
Section 115A is the principal special-rate code for the passive India-source income of non-residents (not being companies) and foreign companies. Where the total income of such an assessee includes dividends, interest of the specified kinds, royalty or fees for technical services (FTS), the tax is charged at the flat rates fixed in the section on the gross amount of that income, and the tax on the balance income is computed separately. Two structural rules complete the scheme: no deduction under sections 28 to 44C or section 57 is allowed in computing the specified income (the gross-basis rule), and where the income consists only of such specified income, the assessee is relieved of the obligation to file a return in certain cases (section 115A(5)).
The rate for royalty and FTS was raised from ten per cent to twenty per cent (plus surcharge and cess) by the Finance Act, 2023 with effect from 1 April 2023. The section operates subject to the treaty-override in section 90(2): where a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement prescribes a lower rate, the assessee may adopt the more beneficial treaty rate, and section 115A does not compel the higher domestic rate.
A.2 Sub-section / clause taxonomy
Sub-section (1): the charge and rates - dividends and specified interest (generally 20%, with concessional rates for certain interest such as section 194LC/194LD/194LBA categories), and royalty/FTS at 20% (post-1-4-2023). Sub-section (2): bar on Chapter VI-A deductions against the specified income except as provided. Sub-section (3): the no-deduction (gross-basis) computation. Sub-section (4): bar on certain set-offs. Sub-section (5): return-filing relief where income is only the specified income and tax has been deducted at the section rates.
A.3 Core doctrinal themes
Theme (1) - Gross-basis charge: the specified income is taxed on its gross amount without deduction of expenses; the flat rate is the quid pro quo for the denial of deductions.
Theme (2) - Treaty override and taxpayer's choice: under section 90(2) the assessee may take the lower of the section 115A rate and the applicable DTAA rate (Azadi Bachao); a beneficial treaty rate cannot be displaced by section 115A.
Theme (3) - Characterisation gates the charge: whether a receipt is 'royalty' or 'FTS' at all is the threshold question, frequently decisive - software payments (Engineering Analysis) and automated, no-human-intervention services (Kotak Securities) illustrate receipts held to fall outside the royalty/FTS net.
Theme (4) - Return-filing relief: section 115A(5) relieves a non-resident whose India income is confined to the specified income (suffered to tax at the section rates) from filing a return, subject to conditions.
Section 115A has been amended repeatedly to align rates with policy and the treaty network. The most consequential recent change is the doubling of the royalty/FTS rate from 10% to 20% by the Finance Act, 2023 (w.e.f. 1-4-2023), which materially affects non-residents from treaty partners whose DTAA rate exceeds the old 10% (commonly 10-15%), and makes treaty-rate optimisation and Tax Residency Certificate compliance central.
Finance Act 2026: no amendment to section 115A. The 20% royalty/FTS rate and the gross-basis scheme continue for AY 2026-27 onward; tax rates for TY 2026-27 are otherwise unchanged.
A.5 CA practitioner pointers
(1) Always test characterisation first - is the receipt truly royalty/FTS within section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) and the treaty Article 12 'make available' test? If not, section 115A does not engage. (2) Compare the section 115A rate with the DTAA rate and adopt the lower under section 90(2), backed by a valid TRC and Form 10F. (3) Remember the gross-basis bar on deductions - do not net expenses against royalty/FTS. (4) Assess the section 115A(5) return-filing relief, but file where there is any other India income or where credit/refund is sought.
B. FINANCE ACT, 2026 - IMPACT NOTE
Section 115A is NOT amended by the Finance Act, 2026. The royalty/FTS rate of 20% (from 1 April 2023, Finance Act, 2023), the gross-basis computation and the treaty-override interaction continue unchanged for AY 2026-27 onward.
C. CASE LAW - CLUSTERED BY ISSUE
Cluster C-1 : Characterisation - what is 'royalty'
Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC).
Facts: Indian end-users/distributors made payments to non-resident suppliers for the use/resale of shrink-wrapped and licensed computer software. The Revenue treated the payments as 'royalty' taxable in India (engaging the section 115A/treaty rate and TDS under section 195).
Issue: Whether payment for the resale/use of computer software, where what is transferred is a copyrighted article and not the copyright itself, is 'royalty' under the DTAA (and section 9(1)(vi)).
Held: The Supreme Court held that the amounts paid by resident end-users/distributors to non-resident manufacturers/suppliers for software were not 'royalty'; the transaction conferred the right to use a copyrighted article, not the copyright. Such payments are business profits, not royalty, and, absent a permanent establishment, are not taxable in India; consequently no TDS obligation arose under section 195. The DTAA definition, being narrower and more beneficial, prevailed over the wider section 9(1)(vi) Explanation.
Ratio: Characterisation under the treaty controls; payment for a copyrighted article is not royalty. Where the treaty definition is narrower than the domestic Explanation, the treaty prevails under section 90(2).
Relevance: The leading authority delimiting 'royalty' for section 115A purposes; decisive in cross-border software, distribution and licensing structures and the linked section 195 TDS question.
CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC) (FTS - human element).
Facts: The question concerned whether stock-exchange transaction charges for fully automated trading facilities were fees for technical services.
Issue: Whether a standardised, automated facility available to all users, provided without individualised human intervention, constitutes 'technical services'.
Held: The Supreme Court held that services rendered through an automated facility, available to all members without any exclusive or individualised human technical input, do not amount to 'technical services'; routine, facility-type services are outside FTS.
Ratio: 'Technical services' connotes a human element and a specialised, individualised service; standardised automated facilities are not FTS.
Relevance: A key characterisation authority - if a receipt is not FTS at all, section 115A's FTS rate cannot apply; widely cited in technology and platform-fee disputes.
Cluster C-2 : Treaty override and the taxpayer's choice of rate
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC).
Facts: The reach of the treaty-override principle and the legitimacy of adopting a beneficial DTAA position were in issue.
Issue: Whether a taxpayer may adopt the more beneficial of the domestic provision and the DTAA, and whether the treaty prevails over the Act where more favourable.
Held: The Supreme Court affirmed that where a DTAA applies, its provisions, if more beneficial than the Act, prevail by virtue of section 90(2); the taxpayer may rely on the treaty to reduce or negate a liability imposed by the Act.
Ratio: Section 90(2) entitles the assessee to the more beneficial of the Act and the treaty; section 115A's domestic rate yields to a lower treaty rate.
Relevance: The foundation for adopting a lower DTAA rate in place of the (now 20%) section 115A royalty/FTS rate - the central planning point after the Finance Act, 2023 increase.
D. PRACTITIONER'S NOTE
Section 115A advisory is a two-stage exercise: characterise, then rate-optimise. First decide whether the receipt is dividend/interest/royalty/FTS at all (Engineering Analysis for software-royalty; Kotak Securities for the human element in FTS) - if it is not, section 115A does not bite. If it is, compare the 20% domestic rate (post-1-4-2023 for royalty/FTS) with the DTAA rate and claim the lower under section 90(2), supported by a TRC and Form 10F, remembering the gross-basis bar on deductions and the section 115A(5) return-filing relief.
E. SOURCES & CITATIONS
Statutory text verified against the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Bare Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2025), Chapter XII section 115A (royalty/FTS rate raised to 20% by the Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 1-4-2023); cross-checked for FA 2026 against the firm's amendment tracker (no change). Marginal heading reproduced verbatim: 'Tax on dividends, royalty and technical service fees in the case of foreign companies.'
Case citations verified against publicly reported sources: Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC); CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC); Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC). Read with section 90(2) (treaty override) and section 9(1)(vi)/(vii). Only decisions on point are listed; none has been invented or paraphrased into existence.
Caveat: Treatise-style commentary for practitioners and academic use; not legal opinion. Treaty rates, the 'make available' clause and MFN-clause developments vary by DTAA; verify the current statutory text, the applicable treaty, TRC/Form 10F requirements and the latest appellate position before relying on any proposition.
STATUTORY ARCHITECTURE — 18-ROW MAP
01. Section & marginal note
Section 115A — Special tax regimes framework — Chapter X-B (Transfer Pricing).
02. Sub-section structure
Per operative text — see Block 1 verbatim.
03. Operative trigger
International transaction (or SDT) between Associated Enterprises.
04. Persons affected
Resident or NR — wherever ALP / AE / international-transaction nexus exists.
05. Time anchor
Per financial year — TP documentation contemporaneous; Form 3CEB due with assessment.
06. Income anchor
Income from international transaction or SDT — to be computed at ALP.
07. Residential-status nexus
AE definition independent of residence; non-resident AE common.
08. Rate / charge mechanism
Recomputed income at ALP taxed at normal rates; primary + secondary adjustments separately.
09. TDS / TCS interaction
TDS u/s 195 on payments to NR-AE; rate consistent with treaty / domestic source rule.
10. Advance-tax obligation
Recomputed income subject to advance tax; interest u/s 234A/B/C.
11. Presumptive provisions
TP framework applies notwithstanding presumptive regime.
12. Exemption / deduction mechanism
Deductions disallowed if not at ALP; secondary adjustment may be repatriation-deemed.
13. Refund / credit
Net effect post-MAP / APA; foreign tax credit interplay.
14. Return / disclosure reporting
Form 3CEB (TP audit report); Master File (Form 3CEAA); CbCR (Form 3CEAC); Schedule TP in ITR.
15. Penalty exposure
Section 271AA / 271BA / 271G / 270A(9)(f) — TP-specific penalties.
16. Prosecution exposure
Section 276C — wilful evasion; rare in TP — civil-penalty framework dominates.
17. Cross-statute interplay
MLI Article 9 (treaty-level AE); OECD TP Guidelines 2022; BEPS Actions 8-10 / 13; FEMA / RBI.
18. Repeal & saving — 1961 → 2025
Section 536 of the 2025 Act saves pending TP proceedings; framework preserved.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Section 115A is part of Chapter XI - Special Tax Regimes — the special tax regimes framework framework of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provision establishes operative rules within the comprehensive special tax regimes framework architecture.
The section operates in coordination with companion provisions in the same chapter and related chapters of the Act. Practitioner-relevant — verbatim text (Block 1) sets out operative language; parallel-provisions table (Block 2) maps to 1961 Act + 2025 Act framework + companion Rules / Forms.
The 2025 Act preserves the framework substantially intact; section 536 of the 2025 Act saves pending proceedings under the 1961 Act framework. Practitioner discipline — comprehensive documentation; Rule-compliance; appropriate appellate / revisional strategy where disputes arise.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves the TP framework substantively intact; pending TPO / DRP / APA / MAP proceedings continue under section 536 saving.
FINANCE ACT AMENDMENT TIMELINE
■ Income-tax Act 1961 — Original provision framework.
■ Finance Act 1989 — Major restructuring across many chapters.
■ Finance Act 2001 — Procedural refinements.
■ Finance Act 2012 — Anti-avoidance + TP refinements.
■ Finance Act 2017 — Faceless framework introduction.
■ Finance Act 2020 — Comprehensive faceless framework.
■ Finance Act 2021 — Reassessment + Settlement Commission restructuring.
■ Finance Act 2024 — Procedural refinements.
■ Finance Act 2025 — Framework preserved; Income-tax Act 2025 s. 536 saving.
JUDICIAL EVOLUTION — VERIFIED LANDMARK AUTHORITIES
▸ Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 ; (2000) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court)
Facts. A municipal levy was challenged on the ground that the charging provision did not clearly specify the rate, the persons charged, and the measure of tax.
Issue. Whether a tax can be imposed in the absence of a clear, unambiguous charging provision identifying the subject, measure, rate, and incidence.
HELD. Article 265 demands that tax be levied only by clear authority of law. The four components — taxable event, person, rate, and measure — must be clearly discernible from the charging provision; ambiguity is fatal to the levy.
“The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions, particularly when the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose other than what is given expression to.”
Relevance. Foundational authority on the rigour required of charging sections — underpins arguments that ambiguous deeming fictions, surcharge formulas, and rate prescriptions must be strictly construed.
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 ; (2015) 1 SCC 1 (Supreme Court — 5-Judge Constitution Bench)
Facts. The Department sought to apply a surcharge provision retrospectively to block-period assessments. The assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and could not have retrospective operation absent express legislative direction.
Issue. Whether amendments to taxing statutes operate prospectively unless the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication conferred retrospective effect.
HELD. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the general rule against retrospectivity of taxing statutes. A taxing provision must be construed prospectively unless the language compels otherwise; mere insertion or substitution by amendment is not sufficient to deny vested rights.
“Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for any argument that an amendment to a charging or computational provision must apply only from the AY notified — useful in transitional disputes around FA 2025 and the 1961 → 2025 changeover.
▸ K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam (1981) 131 ITR 597 ; (1981) 4 SCC 173 (Supreme Court — 3-Judge Bench)
Facts. Section 52(2) (since deleted) deemed sale consideration to be FMV where FMV exceeded the declared consideration by 15%. The Department applied it on a literal reading even when the assessee had not in fact received more than the declared price.
Issue. Whether a deeming provision in a charging schema can be construed literally where its plain reading produces a result manifestly contrary to legislative object.
HELD. The Court read down section 52(2) to apply only where the assessee had actually received consideration in excess of the declared sum. A literal construction yielding absurd or unjust results must yield to an object-based interpretation; the CBDT's contemporaneous Circular No. 96 was held binding on the Revenue.
“It is well settled that a literal construction of a statutory provision ought not to be adopted if it produces a manifestly unjust result… Where a literal construction creates an anomaly, the courts will adopt that construction which avoids the anomaly.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for purposive construction of deeming fictions across the 1961 Act — applies wherever a deeming clause (e.g., s. 50C, s. 56(2)(x), s. 2(22)(e)) yields a result contrary to legislative purpose.
▸ Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2000) 243 ITR 83 ; (2000) 2 SCC 718 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The CIT exercised section 263 revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an assessment order; the assessee challenged the revision on the ground that the order, even if erroneous, was not prejudicial to revenue, and alternatively that the CIT had not satisfied the twin tests.
Issue. Twin conditions for section 263 revision — what does 'erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue' require?
HELD. Both conditions must be conjunctively satisfied: (i) the order must be erroneous in fact or law; and (ii) it must result in prejudice to revenue. An order is erroneous if based on incorrect facts, incorrect law, or made without proper inquiry; mere loss of revenue does not satisfy the prejudice test.
“The expression 'erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. Both the elements must be conjunctively present.”
Relevance. Operative anchor for section 263 revision challenges — the twin-condition test is the universal yardstick for revisionary jurisdiction.
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 ; (2010) 11 SCC 762 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The assessee claimed deduction of interest on borrowings used for investment in shares yielding tax-free dividend. The deduction was disallowed under section 14A. The Department levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment / inaccurate particulars.
Issue. Whether a mere disallowance of a deduction — without any falsehood in the particulars furnished — attracts penalty under section 271(1)(c).
HELD. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted merely because a claim for deduction is disallowed. The assessee's claim must be shown to be false, frivolous, or made without bona fides; mere unsustainability does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
“A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars.”
Relevance. Cornerstone authority for resisting penalty under section 271(1)(c) / section 270A — applies to disallowed deductions, transfer-pricing adjustments, head-of-income re-characterisations where a bona-fide claim was made.
CBDT CIRCULARS — ECOSYSTEM
▸ CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11 April 1955
Subject. Duty of officers to assist assessees in claiming and securing relief
Substance. Foundational circular directing that the AO should not exploit assessee ignorance to deny legitimate reliefs; officer is required to draw attention to refunds or reliefs to which the assessee is entitled. The circular has been judicially noted in several appellate decisions and remains operative for first-appellate practice.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989
Subject. Explanatory notes — Finance Act 1989 amendments (incl. PY unification)
Substance. Explained the FA 1987 / FA 1989 amendments unifying the previous year with the financial year preceding the AY, including transitional provisions for assessees with different accounting years. Useful in any controversy on the timing of accrual / chargeability for early post-1989 AYs.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11 February 2014
Subject. Section 14A — dis-allowance even where no exempt income earned (since modulated)
Substance. Initially directed AOs to apply Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A even where no exempt income was earned in the year; subsequently modulated by Cheminvest (Del HC) and Maxopp (SC). FA 2022 amendment to section 14A re-asserted the position but remains under litigation.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2019 dated 20 March 2019
Subject. Withdrawal of low-tax-effect appeals — monetary thresholds
Substance. Revised monetary thresholds for departmental appeals — ITAT (Rs 50L), HC (Rs 1 Cr), SC (Rs 2 Cr); subsequently further revised. Operates as a non-statutory limitation on the Revenue's appellate engagement, binding under section 119.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated 15 March 2024
Subject. Procedure for transitional reassessment notices post-Ashish Agarwal / Rajeev Bansal
Substance. Procedural guidance for AOs handling transitional reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 affected by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Sets out the form of section 148A inquiry, time-bar calculation under TOLA, and JAO/FAO jurisdiction in faceless cases.
WORKED EXAMPLES
Illustration — Illustration 1 — Standard 115A application
Facts. Standard scenario invoking section 115A.
Computation.
Operative provision applied per bare-Act framework.
Section 115A invocation; companion-section coordination per Chapter XI - Special Tax Regimes.
Result. Standard framework operative.
Illustration — Illustration 2 — Bona-fide-difficulty defence
Facts. Assessee establishes bona-fide difficulty in section 115A compliance.
Computation.
Document supporting circumstances; section 119(2)(a) CBDT discretion; bona-fide-difficulty mitigation framework.
Result. Mitigation framework available.
Illustration — Illustration 3 — Appeal pathway
Facts. Disputed assessment under section 115A.
Computation.
Section 246A appeal → CIT(A); section 253 ITAT; section 260A HC.
Standard appellate route preserved.
Result. Full appellate framework available.
Illustration — Illustration 4 — Section 264 revision alternative
Facts. Alternative pathway via Commissioner.
Computation.
Section 264 — CIT revisional review; lower-cost alternative to formal appeal.
Result. Revisional alternative available.
Illustration — Illustration 5 — Documentation discipline
Facts. Practitioner discipline for section 115A.
Computation.
Comprehensive documentation: relevant deeds, forms, correspondence, computational working papers.
8-year preservation.
Result. Documentation = defence strength.
PRACTITIONER PLANNING NOTES
■ Comprehensive analysis of section 115A operative scope.
■ Documentation discipline — 8-year preservation.
■ Form / Schedule compliance per applicable framework.
■ Section 119(2)(a) CBDT relief — hardship cases.
■ Section 154 rectification — computational errors.
■ Section 246A appeal — substantive disputes.
■ Section 264 revision — alternative pathway.
■ Article 226 writ — jurisdictional defects.
■ Bona-fide-explanation framework throughout.
■ Reliance Petroproducts ratio for genuine claims.
■ Vatika Township prospectivity protection.
■ Mathuram Agrawal strict-construction defence.
■ KP Varghese purposive interpretation.
■ Time-bar / limitation awareness.
■ Cross-section coordination within chapter.
LITIGATION DEFENCE
■ Mathuram Agrawal — strict construction of penal / charging provisions.
■ Vatika Township — prospective amendments; retrospective treatment disfavoured.
■ KP Varghese — purposive construction within statutory text.
■ Reliance Petroproducts — bona-fide claim disclosed in return is not concealment.
■ Dilip N. Shroff — mens rea / discretion in disclosure framework.
■ Section 246A appeal — comprehensive substantive review.
■ Section 264 revision — alternative pathway.
■ Section 154 rectification — computational corrections.
■ Section 482 CrPC / Article 226 writ — jurisdictional defects.
■ Section 119(2)(a) — CBDT relief in genuine hardship.
■ Documentation 8 years — comprehensive defence file.
■ Cross-reference to companion provisions in chapter.
■ Procedural compliance check at every stage.
■ Time-bar / limitation defence where applicable.
■ Coordination with Department — bona-fide engagement.
■ Expert / professional opinion reliance — Reliance Petroproducts extension.
STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE — 15 STEPS
Step 1. Identify operative framework
Determine section 115A application; companion-section coordination.
Step 2. Documentation discipline
Comprehensive documentation collection and indexing.
Step 3. Form / Schedule compliance
Identify applicable Forms; timely filing.
Step 4. Computational working
Working papers reconciled with bare-Act + Rules.
Step 5. Return filing
Section 139 — appropriate return type; verification.
Step 6. Schedule TR / TP
Tax-credit and TP schedules where applicable.
Step 7. Section 143(1) processing
Department processes; intimation analysed.
Step 8. Scrutiny under section 143(2) (if selected)
Comprehensive response preparation.
Step 9. Order receipt + analysis
Quantum analysis + appellate-strategy.
Step 10. Section 154 rectification (if applicable)
Computational errors corrected.
Step 11. Section 246A appeal (if disputed)
CIT(A) → ITAT → HC → SC.
Step 12. Section 264 revision (alternative)
CIT revisional review.
Step 13. Article 226 writ (if jurisdictional defect)
HC supervisory framework.
Step 14. Section 119(2)(a) CBDT relief (if hardship)
Discretionary framework.
Step 15. Documentation 8 years preserved
Comprehensive file maintained.
PRACTITIONER CHECKLIST — 19 ITEMS
PRACTITIONER CHECKLIST
☐ Section 115A operative framework identified.
☐ Documentation collected.
☐ Forms / Schedules identified.
☐ Computational working prepared.
☐ Return filed timely.
☐ Schedule TR / TP completed.
☐ Section 143(1) intimation analysed.
☐ Section 143(2) response (if applicable).
☐ Order received + analysed.
☐ Section 154 rectification (if applicable).
☐ Section 246A appeal (if disputed).
☐ Section 264 revision (alternative).
☐ Article 226 writ (if jurisdictional defect).
☐ Section 119(2)(a) CBDT relief (if hardship).
☐ Documentation 8 years preserved.
☐ PAN-Aadhaar linkage.
☐ DSC active for e-filing.
☐ Bank-account validated.
☐ Coordination + Department communication.
CROSS-REFERENCES (28+)
CROSS-REFERENCES
▸ Section 115A — Operative framework.
▸ Chapter XI - Special Tax Regimes companion sections.
▸ Section 246A — Appeal framework.
▸ Section 253 — ITAT framework.
▸ Section 260A — HC framework.
▸ Section 264 — Revision framework.
▸ Section 154 — Rectification framework.
▸ Section 119(2)(a) — CBDT relief.
▸ Section 281 — Void transfers (companion).
▸ Section 222 — Recovery (companion).
▸ Section 244A — Refund interest.
▸ Income-tax Rules 1962.
▸ CrPC 1973 — Procedural (where applicable).
▸ Indian Evidence Act 1872.
▸ Income-tax Act 2025 — s. 536 saving.
▸ BNS 2023 — Successor to IPC.
▸ Companies Act 2013.
▸ FEMA 1999.
▸ PMLA 2002.
▸ MLI Article 25 — MAP framework.
▸ DTAA framework.
▸ DPDP Act 2023.
▸ Aadhaar Act 2016.
▸ PAN framework (s. 139A).
▸ DSC framework.
▸ E-Verification framework.
▸ GST Acts (companion).
▸ RTI Act 2005 — Disclosure framework.
Case Laws & Commentary
SECTION 115A — TAX ON DIVIDENDS, ROYALTY AND TECHNICAL SERVICE FEES IN THE CASE OF FOREIGN COMPANIES
Case Laws & Commentary (Income-tax Act, 1961 as amended by Finance Act, 2026)
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
A.1 Structural position & legislative purpose
Section 115A is the principal special-rate code for the passive India-source income of non-residents (not being companies) and foreign companies. Where the total income of such an assessee includes dividends, interest of the specified kinds, royalty or fees for technical services (FTS), the tax is charged at the flat rates fixed in the section on the gross amount of that income, and the tax on the balance income is computed separately. Two structural rules complete the scheme: no deduction under sections 28 to 44C or section 57 is allowed in computing the specified income (the gross-basis rule), and where the income consists only of such specified income, the assessee is relieved of the obligation to file a return in certain cases (section 115A(5)).
The rate for royalty and FTS was raised from ten per cent to twenty per cent (plus surcharge and cess) by the Finance Act, 2023 with effect from 1 April 2023. The section operates subject to the treaty-override in section 90(2): where a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement prescribes a lower rate, the assessee may adopt the more beneficial treaty rate, and section 115A does not compel the higher domestic rate.
A.2 Sub-section / clause taxonomy
Sub-section (1): the charge and rates - dividends and specified interest (generally 20%, with concessional rates for certain interest such as section 194LC/194LD/194LBA categories), and royalty/FTS at 20% (post-1-4-2023). Sub-section (2): bar on Chapter VI-A deductions against the specified income except as provided. Sub-section (3): the no-deduction (gross-basis) computation. Sub-section (4): bar on certain set-offs. Sub-section (5): return-filing relief where income is only the specified income and tax has been deducted at the section rates.
A.3 Core doctrinal themes
Theme (1) - Gross-basis charge: the specified income is taxed on its gross amount without deduction of expenses; the flat rate is the quid pro quo for the denial of deductions.
Theme (2) - Treaty override and taxpayer's choice: under section 90(2) the assessee may take the lower of the section 115A rate and the applicable DTAA rate (Azadi Bachao); a beneficial treaty rate cannot be displaced by section 115A.
Theme (3) - Characterisation gates the charge: whether a receipt is 'royalty' or 'FTS' at all is the threshold question, frequently decisive - software payments (Engineering Analysis) and automated, no-human-intervention services (Kotak Securities) illustrate receipts held to fall outside the royalty/FTS net.
Theme (4) - Return-filing relief: section 115A(5) relieves a non-resident whose India income is confined to the specified income (suffered to tax at the section rates) from filing a return, subject to conditions.
A.4 Legislative evolution / Finance Act amendment trail
Section 115A has been amended repeatedly to align rates with policy and the treaty network. The most consequential recent change is the doubling of the royalty/FTS rate from 10% to 20% by the Finance Act, 2023 (w.e.f. 1-4-2023), which materially affects non-residents from treaty partners whose DTAA rate exceeds the old 10% (commonly 10-15%), and makes treaty-rate optimisation and Tax Residency Certificate compliance central.
Finance Act 2026: no amendment to section 115A. The 20% royalty/FTS rate and the gross-basis scheme continue for AY 2026-27 onward; tax rates for TY 2026-27 are otherwise unchanged.
A.5 CA practitioner pointers
(1) Always test characterisation first - is the receipt truly royalty/FTS within section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) and the treaty Article 12 'make available' test? If not, section 115A does not engage. (2) Compare the section 115A rate with the DTAA rate and adopt the lower under section 90(2), backed by a valid TRC and Form 10F. (3) Remember the gross-basis bar on deductions - do not net expenses against royalty/FTS. (4) Assess the section 115A(5) return-filing relief, but file where there is any other India income or where credit/refund is sought.
B. FINANCE ACT, 2026 - IMPACT NOTE
Section 115A is NOT amended by the Finance Act, 2026. The royalty/FTS rate of 20% (from 1 April 2023, Finance Act, 2023), the gross-basis computation and the treaty-override interaction continue unchanged for AY 2026-27 onward.
C. CASE LAW - CLUSTERED BY ISSUE
Cluster C-1 : Characterisation - what is 'royalty'
Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC).
Facts: Indian end-users/distributors made payments to non-resident suppliers for the use/resale of shrink-wrapped and licensed computer software. The Revenue treated the payments as 'royalty' taxable in India (engaging the section 115A/treaty rate and TDS under section 195).
Issue: Whether payment for the resale/use of computer software, where what is transferred is a copyrighted article and not the copyright itself, is 'royalty' under the DTAA (and section 9(1)(vi)).
Held: The Supreme Court held that the amounts paid by resident end-users/distributors to non-resident manufacturers/suppliers for software were not 'royalty'; the transaction conferred the right to use a copyrighted article, not the copyright. Such payments are business profits, not royalty, and, absent a permanent establishment, are not taxable in India; consequently no TDS obligation arose under section 195. The DTAA definition, being narrower and more beneficial, prevailed over the wider section 9(1)(vi) Explanation.
Ratio: Characterisation under the treaty controls; payment for a copyrighted article is not royalty. Where the treaty definition is narrower than the domestic Explanation, the treaty prevails under section 90(2).
Relevance: The leading authority delimiting 'royalty' for section 115A purposes; decisive in cross-border software, distribution and licensing structures and the linked section 195 TDS question.
CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC) (FTS - human element).
Facts: The question concerned whether stock-exchange transaction charges for fully automated trading facilities were fees for technical services.
Issue: Whether a standardised, automated facility available to all users, provided without individualised human intervention, constitutes 'technical services'.
Held: The Supreme Court held that services rendered through an automated facility, available to all members without any exclusive or individualised human technical input, do not amount to 'technical services'; routine, facility-type services are outside FTS.
Ratio: 'Technical services' connotes a human element and a specialised, individualised service; standardised automated facilities are not FTS.
Relevance: A key characterisation authority - if a receipt is not FTS at all, section 115A's FTS rate cannot apply; widely cited in technology and platform-fee disputes.
Cluster C-2 : Treaty override and the taxpayer's choice of rate
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC).
Facts: The reach of the treaty-override principle and the legitimacy of adopting a beneficial DTAA position were in issue.
Issue: Whether a taxpayer may adopt the more beneficial of the domestic provision and the DTAA, and whether the treaty prevails over the Act where more favourable.
Held: The Supreme Court affirmed that where a DTAA applies, its provisions, if more beneficial than the Act, prevail by virtue of section 90(2); the taxpayer may rely on the treaty to reduce or negate a liability imposed by the Act.
Ratio: Section 90(2) entitles the assessee to the more beneficial of the Act and the treaty; section 115A's domestic rate yields to a lower treaty rate.
Relevance: The foundation for adopting a lower DTAA rate in place of the (now 20%) section 115A royalty/FTS rate - the central planning point after the Finance Act, 2023 increase.
D. PRACTITIONER'S NOTE
Section 115A advisory is a two-stage exercise: characterise, then rate-optimise. First decide whether the receipt is dividend/interest/royalty/FTS at all (Engineering Analysis for software-royalty; Kotak Securities for the human element in FTS) - if it is not, section 115A does not bite. If it is, compare the 20% domestic rate (post-1-4-2023 for royalty/FTS) with the DTAA rate and claim the lower under section 90(2), supported by a TRC and Form 10F, remembering the gross-basis bar on deductions and the section 115A(5) return-filing relief.
E. SOURCES & CITATIONS
Statutory text verified against the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Bare Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2025), Chapter XII section 115A (royalty/FTS rate raised to 20% by the Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 1-4-2023); cross-checked for FA 2026 against the firm's amendment tracker (no change). Marginal heading reproduced verbatim: 'Tax on dividends, royalty and technical service fees in the case of foreign companies.'
Case citations verified against publicly reported sources: Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC); CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC); Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC). Read with section 90(2) (treaty override) and section 9(1)(vi)/(vii). Only decisions on point are listed; none has been invented or paraphrased into existence.
Caveat: Treatise-style commentary for practitioners and academic use; not legal opinion. Treaty rates, the 'make available' clause and MFN-clause developments vary by DTAA; verify the current statutory text, the applicable treaty, TRC/Form 10F requirements and the latest appellate position before relying on any proposition.