“Section 9(1)(vi)”

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

purchase of\nsoftware products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that\nsuch payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the\nprovisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for\npurchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the\nExplanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by\nFinance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976\nwhich clarifies that the transfer of all or any rights

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

purchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that such payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for purchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 which clarifies that the transfer of all or any rights

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

purchase of\nsoftware products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that\nsuch payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the\nprovisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for\npurchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the\nExplanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by\nFinance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976\nwhich clarifies that the transfer of all or any rights

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOS filed by the assessee stand dismissed

purchase of\nsoftware products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that\nsuch payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the\nprovisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for\npurchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the\nExplanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by\nFinance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976\nwhich clarifies that the transfer of all or any rights

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI, BKC vs. HSBC BANK PLC, UNITED KINGDOM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit(It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai Hsbc Bank Plc Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautriya 8 Canada Square, London, Bhavan, G Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Foreign United Kingdom- Mumbai-400051. 999999, United Kingdom. (Pan : Aabch325P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 56, Mumbai Vide Order, Dated 02.04.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ld. Dcit (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai U/S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.02.2018, For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. "Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, For The Issue Of Expenses Of Rs. 3,77,38,994/-, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Relying On Para 16 Of Itat'S Order For A.Y. 2011-12 & Para 8 Of Itat'S Order For A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 As The Orders U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) For A.Y.S 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Never Examined The Issue Of 'Royalty' For The Reimbursement Received From Hsbc Securities & Capital Markets (India) Private Limited (Hsch).”

therefore, not subject to tax under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since neither Section 9(1)(i) or Sections 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act bring this income within the scope of the taxing provisions, the referral fees received by the assessee from HSCI

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

classifying the payments made to M/s. VISA Worldwide Ptd. Ltd., Singapore ('VISA')/M/s. MasterCard Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd ('Mastercard") as 'Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and Singapore. 3:2 The AO erred in in disallowing the payments

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalshell 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

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 ... issue relating to receipt of IT service and software license charges treated as royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and under Article 13 of the India - UK DTAA, factual position states 12 Shell International Petroleum Company Pvt. Ltd. AY 2022-23 that assessee

ITO (IT)- 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

Intelsat Corporation, UK for transponder charges are specifically covered by E transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to xplanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) 1)(vi) as being included in the expression process and hence as being included in the expression process and hence fall under definition ... erred in not taking into account that the has erred in not taking into account that the Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Explanation

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

Under the Act, HO\nand the Branch office are not treated as separate entity for tax purposes.\nExplanation (a) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act expressly deems HO and\nBranch of the bank to be separate and independent entities for limited\npurpose of taxing interest paid by Branch

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,COLOGNE, GERMANY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Under the Act, HO\nand the Branch office are not treated as separate entity for tax purposes.\nExplanation (a) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act expressly deems HO and\nBranch of the bank to be separate and independent entities for limited\npurpose of taxing interest paid by Branch

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Under the Act, HO\nand the Branch office are not treated as separate entity for tax purposes.\nExplanation (a) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act expressly deems HO and\nBranch of the bank to be separate and independent entities for limited\npurpose of taxing interest paid by Branch

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

Under the Act, HO\nand the Branch office are not treated as separate entity for tax purposes.\nExplanation (a) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act expressly deems HO and\nBranch of the bank to be separate and independent entities for limited\npurpose of taxing interest paid by Branch

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

into account that the payments made by the\nassessee to Intelsat Corporation, UK for transponder charges are specifically\ncovered by Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the\nexpression 'process' and hence fall under definition of Royalty as per\nExplanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi ... nCIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that the term 'process' as provided\nin Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is domestic law meaning of the\nthat term from 01.06.1976 as clarified by the Finance Act, 2012 and hence\nthe meaning for purpose

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat Corporation, UK for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of Royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that the Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

into account that the payments made by the\nassessee to Intelsat Corporation, UK for transponder charges are specifically\ncovered by Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the\nexpression 'process' and hence fall under definition of Royalty as per\nExplanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi ... nCIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that the term 'process' as provided\nin Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is domestic law meaning of the\nthat term from 01.06.1976 as clarified by the Finance Act, 2012 and hence\nthe meaning for purpose

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

into account that the payments made by the\nassessee to Intelsat Corporation, UK for transponder charges are specifically\ncovered by Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the\nexpression 'process' and hence fall under definition of Royalty as per\nExplanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi ... nCIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that the term 'process' as provided\nin Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is domestic law meaning of the\nthat term from 01.06.1976 as clarified by the Finance Act, 2012 and hence\nthe meaning for purpose

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

into account that the payments made by the\nassessee to Intelsat Corporation, UK for transponder charges are specifically\ncovered by Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the\nexpression 'process' and hence fall under definition of Royalty as per\nExplanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi ... nCIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that the term 'process' as provided\nin Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is domestic law meaning of the\nthat term from 01.06.1976 as clarified by the Finance Act, 2012 and hence\nthe meaning for purpose