IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1751/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23)

Shell International Petroleum vs Deputy Commissioner of Company Limited Income Tax (International C/o B S R & Co. LLP, 2nd Floor, Taxation) 4(2)(1), LodhaExcelus, Apollo Mills Mumbai Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 (PAN: AAICS0357B)

Appellant Respondent Present for:

Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal and Shreyas Sardesai, Advocates Respondent by : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the final assessment order passed pursuant to the directions of Id. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5)/2024- 25/1071299337 (1) dated 17.12.2024 passed u/s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"),for AY 2022-

23.

2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

“1. Erred in assessing the total income at Rs. 287,67,98,112 as against income of Rs. 33,72,28,240 offered by the Appellant.

Receipts from General Business Support Services ('General BSS')

does not constitute 'income'

2. Erred in holding that the payments received of Rs. 242,07,82,584 by the Appellant constitutes 'income without appreciating the fact that the receipts from General BSS are in nature of cost-recharge pursuant to Cost Contribution Agreement ('CCA') which does not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India.

Receipts from General BSS does not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS')

3 Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant for providing General BSS constitutes FTS under the Act as well as India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-UK DTAA').

4. Failed in appreciating that the services provided by the Appellant are routine and not technical in nature and rendering of such services does not make available' any technical knowledge, skill, experience, etc. to the service recipient, which cannot be termed as FTS under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA and hence not subject to tax in India.

Receipts towards software license charges does not constitute income

5. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards software license charges of Rs. 47,98,230 constitutes 'income' without appreciating the facts that the said receipts are in nature of reimbursements and hence does not constitute income under section

2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India.”

Receipts towards software license charges does not qualify as Royalty

6. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards cost allocation for software license charges as 'Royalty under provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA Erred in not appreciating that the payments received were in nature of cost allocations of third-party vendor software license charges and not for 'use of right to use of copyright', 'use of process', 'use of property similar to patent, invention, literary work, process, design, etc. accordingly does not qualify as "Royalty under the Act as well as the India-UK DTAA.

Receipts towards reimbursement of IT costs does not constitute income

7. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards reimbursement of IT costs of Rs. 11,39,89,058 constitutes 'income without appreciating the facts that the said receipts are in nature of reimbursements and hence does not constitute income under section

2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India.

Receipts towards reimbursement of IT costs does not qualify as FTS

8. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards reimbursement of IT costs qualifies as 'FTS' the Act as well as Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA.

9. Erred in not appreciating that the payments were not for p