← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(vi)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)770 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(vi) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vi)

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

DIT v. Ericsson A.B
343 ITR 470 · 2012 · High Court
256
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Judgments citing Section 9(1)(vi)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. United Home Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1559/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

payments made by the assessee to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited 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 ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

New Skies Satellites Bv, C/O Ernst and Young LLP vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 983/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

holding that the payments received by the Appellant as consideration for data transmission services are in the nature of 'Royalty' as defined under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') and Article 12(4) of the DTAA. 2. 1. That without prejudice to the above ... case and in law. the Panel and the Ld. AO erred in reading into the expanded meaning of 'Royalty' contained in section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as retrospectively amended by Finance Act, 2012, for the purpose of interpreting the definition of 'Royalty' as provided under Article

Mixpanel, Inc., San Francisco vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), International Tax, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1605/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nishank Vashistha, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153Section 234ASection 270ASection 274

enduring benefit from the aforesaid survey. In that view of the matter, though Fugro rendered technical services as defined under Section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2, it does not satisfy the requirement of technical services as contained in DTAA. Therefore the liability to tax is not attracted. Accordingly the first

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source - 29- ITA Nos.1193 ... assessee cannot be expected to effect tax deduction at source on the payments due to subsequent amendment made under the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reliance was placed on various judgement in this regard by the Id.AR. If a payment is treated as royalty under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source - 29- ITA Nos.1193 ... assessee cannot be expected to effect tax deduction at source on the payments due to subsequent amendment made under the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reliance was placed on various judgement in this regard by the Id.AR. If a payment is treated as royalty under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1263/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source - 29- ITA Nos.1193 ... assessee cannot be expected to effect tax deduction at source on the payments due to subsequent amendment made under the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reliance was placed on various judgement in this regard by the Id.AR. If a payment is treated as royalty under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source outside India as the assessee ... assessee cannot be expected to effect tax deduction at source on the payments due to subsequent amendment made under the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reliance was placed on various judgement in this regard by the Id.AR. - If a payment is treated as royalty under

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source - 29 - ITA Nos.1193 ... assessee cannot be expected to effect tax deduction at source on the payments due to subsequent amendment made under the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reliance was placed on various judgement in this regard by the ld.AR. - If a payment is treated as royalty under

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1206/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source - 29- ITA Nos.1193 ... assessee cannot be expected to effect tax deduction at source on the payments due to subsequent amendment made under the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reliance was placed on various judgement in this regard by the Id.AR. If a payment is treated as royalty under

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1205/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source - 29- ITA Nos.1193 ... assessee cannot be expected to effect tax deduction at source on the payments due to subsequent amendment made under the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reliance was placed on various judgement in this regard by the Id.AR. If a payment is treated as royalty under

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1194/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source - 29- ITA Nos.1193 ... assessee cannot be expected to effect tax deduction at source on the payments due to subsequent amendment made under the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reliance was placed on various judgement in this regard by the Id.AR. If a payment is treated as royalty under

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source - 29 - ITA Nos.1193 ... assessee cannot be expected to effect tax deduction at source on the payments due to subsequent amendment made under the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reliance was placed on various judgement in this regard by the ld.AR. - If a payment is treated as royalty under

American Chemical Society, Usa vs. DCIT (International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

customers are chargeable to tax as royalty in terms of Article 12(3) of India-US Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") and under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have erred ... being received for the use or right to use copyright in a literary or scientific work within the meaning of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of India-US DTAA. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Ntt Docomo, Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-3(3)(1)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 2736/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Circle- II, International Taxation, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Ltd., Dehradun

ITA 5696/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

5696/Del/2018 Weatherford Oil Tools ME Ltd. used for mining or like project and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

Weatherford Oil Tools Me Ltd., Dehradun vs. ACIT, Circle- II, International Taxation, Dehradun

ITA 5647/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

5696/Del/2018 Weatherford Oil Tools ME Ltd. used for mining or like project and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

ACIT, Circle- II, International Taxation, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Ltd., Dehradun

ITA 417/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

5696/Del/2018 Weatherford Oil Tools ME Ltd. used for mining or like project and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, International Taxation, Dehradun

ITA 7848/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

5696/Del/2018 Weatherford Oil Tools ME Ltd. used for mining or like project and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

ACIT, Circle- II, International Taxation, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Ltd., Dehradun

ITA 7477/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

5696/Del/2018 Weatherford Oil Tools ME Ltd. used for mining or like project and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

Weatherford Oil Tools M E Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun

ITA 7334/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

5696/Del/2018 Weatherford Oil Tools ME Ltd. used for mining or like project and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered by the Hon'ble Apex Court