The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that payments made for advertising through Google AdWords platform constitute an advertising contract covered under Section 194C of the Income-tax Act and cannot be treated as “Fees for Technical Services” (FTS) under Section 194J merely because the platform operates through sophisticated algorithms and automated technology. 

The bench of Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President) and Manjunatha G (Accountant Member) has upheld the deletion of a demand raised for alleged short deduction of tax at source (TDS). 

BUY NOW: Income Tax Monthly E-Compilation : March 2026

The dispute arose in the case of a company engaged in operating the online gaming platform Ace2Three.com. During Assessment Year 2018-19, the company utilized Google’s AdWords program for online advertising and deducted TDS at 2% under Section 194C, treating the arrangement as an advertising contract. 

A survey conducted by the Income Tax Department under Section 133A led the Assessing Officer (AO) to conclude that the payments made to Google India Private Limited were actually in the nature of technical services. According to the department, Google AdWords involved sophisticated automated systems, real-time bidding mechanisms, data analytics, and targeted advertising technology, which allegedly brought the payments within the scope of Section 194J requiring TDS at 10%. 

Based on this view, the AO treated the company as an “assessee in default” and raised a demand for short deduction of TDS amounting to approximately ₹2.55 crore along with interest of about ₹57.75 lakh under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reversed the assessment order and held that Google AdWords is fundamentally an advertising platform and not a technical service rendered to advertisers. The appellate authority noted that there was no transfer of technology or technical know-how to the assessee and that the company merely used Google’s advertising infrastructure to display advertisements. 

The CIT(A) further relied on CBDT Circular No. 715 and judicial precedents to conclude that payments for advertising fall squarely under Section 194C and therefore TDS deducted at 2% was correct. 

The department contended that Google AdWords was not a simple advertising arrangement. It argued that the platform uses advanced algorithms, data analysis, user profiling, keyword targeting, and dynamic advertisement placement based on factors such as age, gender, browsing history, and user behavior. According to the department, such activities constituted technical services involving substantial technological expertise and human intervention. 

The taxpayer argued that Google AdWords is a standardized, automated advertising platform available to all advertisers. The company merely purchased advertising space and had no access to Google’s technology, algorithms, servers, or proprietary systems. No technical knowledge or expertise was made available to the advertiser. 

The assessee further submitted that Section 194C specifically covers advertising contracts and CBDT Circular No. 715 clearly recognizes payments to advertising agencies as payments covered by Section 194C. Therefore, resorting to the more general provisions of Section 194J was legally impermissible. 

The Tribunal undertook a detailed examination of the nature of Google AdWords and the legal distinction between advertising services and technical services.

It observed that for a payment to qualify as Fees for Technical Services under Section 194J read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii), the services rendered must be managerial, technical, or consultancy services. The Tribunal emphasized that judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharti Cellular, recognize that technical services ordinarily involve human expertise, skill, intelligence, or direct human intervention. 

According to the Tribunal, Google AdWords operates as a standard automated self-service platform. Advertisers can independently select keywords, upload advertisements, determine budgets, and manage campaigns through an online interface. The processes of keyword matching, ad ranking, bidding, and display are executed automatically through Google’s packaged algorithms. 

The Bench observed that the mere existence of sophisticated technology does not convert an automated facility into a technical service. A customer using an automated technological platform is not the same as receiving technical services from the provider. 

A key factor influencing the Tribunal’s decision was the absence of evidence demonstrating significant human intervention in the services received by the assessee. The Revenue’s claim that Google employees were involved in the advertising process was not supported by material establishing that the advertiser received any customized technical service. 

The Tribunal held that merely because technology was used in delivering the advertising platform could not justify characterization of the payments as Fees for Technical Services. 

The Tribunal further stressed that advertising contracts are specifically covered by Section 194C. Once the legislature has expressly classified advertising within a particular TDS provision, the department cannot bypass that provision and invoke the more general provisions relating to technical services simply because the advertising medium is digital or technologically advanced. 

Referring to CBDT Circulars, the Bench noted that Section 194J generally applies where advertising agencies make payments for professional services such as payments to directors, film artists, or cameramen. However, payments for advertising in print or electronic media continue to remain within the ambit of Section 194C. 

The Tribunal additionally referred to the Finance Act, 2020 amendment reducing the TDS rate under Section 194J for Fees for Technical Services from 10% to 2% (except professional services). It observed that the amendment was introduced to reduce litigation arising from disputes over classification between Sections 194C and 194J. 

While the amendment formally applied from Assessment Year 2020-21 onwards, the Tribunal noted that the legislative intent behind the change supported the assessee’s case and further demonstrated that no substantial revenue loss existed where TDS had already been deducted at 2%. 

Dismissing the department’s appeal, the Hyderabad ITAT held that payments made to Google India Private Limited for participation in the Google AdWords program constitute payments for advertising services covered by Section 194C and not Fees for Technical Services under Section 194J. 

The Tribunal therefore upheld the deletion of the TDS demand and interest raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act.