← 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)

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl, Tax 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan: Aaaca 3012H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Dated 13.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Order Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.03.2024 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant :-2-:

Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the mining activity not covered in the explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and payment in relation to mining activity is covered under section 44BB and not under section 115A r.w.s, 44DA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. Telekom Malaysia Behard, Malaysia

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2432/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Manju Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9

India. Further, the learned AO also held that the payments made to the assessee are taxable as royalty- in India both under section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act and Article 12 of the India Malaysia Tax Treaty. Accordingly, the AO determined a final demand

Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhilwara vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

ITA 1021/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

service agreement with 'ABMC' to offer a customized programme for employees of 'ABMC' - Assessing Officer in original proceedings treated income as 'royalty' under section 9(1)(vi) - Tribunal remanded matter to Assessing Officer to examine issue in light of judgment of Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence ... receipts only in light of judgment of Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis case (supra) which dealt with taxability of receipt as 'royalty' under section 9(1)(vi), impugned addition was to be deleted on technical grounds - Held, yes [Paras 9- 14] [In favour of assessee]” 3.2.2 Reference is also placed

Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhilwara vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1015/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Date Of Hearing."

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

service agreement with 'ABMC' to offer a customized programme for employees of 'ABMC' - Assessing Officer in original proceedings treated income as 'royalty' under section 9(1)(vi) Tribunal remanded matter to Assessing Officer to examine issue in light of judgment of Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence ... receipts only in light of judgment of Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis case (supra) which dealt with taxability of receipt as 'royalty' under section 9(1)(vi), impugned addition was to be deleted on technical grounds - Held, yes [Paras 9- 14] [In favour of assessee]" 3.2.2 Reference is also placed

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)_4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 3317/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

said case the Assessing Officer, applying Article 12(3) of the DTAA entered between India and U.S.A. as also the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act to the transaction between the parties, held that the transaction involved copyright, which attracted the payment of royalty and accordingly ... interest in copyright, which gave rise to the payment of royalty, would be an income deemed to have accrued in India under Section 9(1)(vi) requiring deduction of tax at source. The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required

Shell International Petroleum Company Limitedium, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 995/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

said case the Assessing Officer, applying Article 12(3) of the DTAA entered between India and U.S.A. as also the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act to the transaction between the parties, held that the transaction involved copyright, which attracted the payment of royalty and accordingly ... interest in copyright, which gave rise to the payment of royalty, would be an income deemed to have accrued in India under Section 9(1)(vi) requiring deduction of tax at source. The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 2307/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

said case the Assessing Officer, applying Article 12(3) of the DTAA entered between India and U.S.A. as also the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act to the transaction between the parties, held that the transaction involved copyright, which attracted the payment of royalty and accordingly ... interest in copyright, which gave rise to the payment of royalty, would be an income deemed to have accrued in India under Section 9(1)(vi) requiring deduction of tax at source. The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required

M/S. Shell Interational Petroleum Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1244/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

said case the Assessing Officer, applying Article 12(3) of the DTAA entered between India and U.S.A. as also the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act to the transaction between the parties, held that the transaction involved copyright, which attracted the payment of royalty and accordingly ... interest in copyright, which gave rise to the payment of royalty, would be an income deemed to have accrued in India under Section 9(1)(vi) requiring deduction of tax at source. The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required

M/S Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)- 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7499/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Respondent)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

said case the Assessing Officer, applying Article 12(3) of the DTAA entered between India and U.S.A. as also the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act to the transaction between the parties, held that the transaction involved copyright, which attracted the payment of royalty and accordingly ... interest in copyright, which gave rise to the payment of royalty, would be an income deemed to have accrued in India under Section 9(1)(vi) requiring deduction of tax at source. The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required

ACIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Munchen, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5094/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that payment received from sale of software as royalty income taxable under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in not appreciating that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that payment received for software were royalty income taxable under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act especially considering Explanation 4 inserted by Finance Act 2012. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT(It)-3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Munchen, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5093/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that payment received from sale of software as royalty income taxable under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in not appreciating that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that payment received for software were royalty income taxable under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act especially considering Explanation 4 inserted by Finance Act 2012. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Munchen, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4833/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that payment received from sale of software as royalty income taxable under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in not appreciating that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that payment received for software were royalty income taxable under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act especially considering Explanation 4 inserted by Finance Act 2012. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Munchener Ruckversicherungs -Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Munchen, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4832/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that payment received from sale of software as royalty income taxable under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in not appreciating that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that payment received for software were royalty income taxable under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act especially considering Explanation 4 inserted by Finance Act 2012. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., Washington, Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 869/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2022-23 Expeditors International Of Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Washington Inc. 1015 Third Income Tax Circle -1 (2) (2) Avenue Seattle Washington International Taxation, New Usa 981041190 Usa 98104 Delhi Pan No. Aacce4315R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

amounting to INR 1,53,56,641 received by the Appellant from EI India is in nature of royalty under explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA 5. That without prejudice to any other ground of appeal

ACIT, Circle-10(1) New Delhi, C.R Building ITO vs. Igroup Infotech India Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 263/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

claimed by the assessee. Co No. 34/DEL/2024…Igroup Infotech 4. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short], consideration for software constitutes ‘Royalty’ under the Act and such royalty is taxable ... such distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use of or right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the Income-tax Act (section 9(1)(vi), along with explanations 2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application

ACIT, Circle-10(1), ITO, Cr Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi vs. Igroup Infotech India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1155/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

claimed by the assessee. Co No. 34/DEL/2024…Igroup Infotech 4. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short], consideration for software constitutes ‘Royalty’ under the Act and such royalty is taxable ... such distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use of or right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the Income-tax Act (section 9(1)(vi), along with explanations 2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. Tata Communications (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO of the assesseeare dismissed

ITA 39/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.39/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

DCIT(IT) has erred in considering the payments made by Vodafone South Limited (VSL) to the Appellant as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and the tax treaty between India and UK and passing assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(1) r.w.s

ACIT Circle-26(1), Delhi vs. V&S Seair Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1)(1), 8 Cross Street, 22-00, Manulife International Taxation, Tower, Singapore New Delhi Pan :Aadct5366N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

process and/ or transfer of rights in a process and/or imparting of any information is taxable as a Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and under the Article 12(3) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty ('Tax Treaty') despite the favorable precedents ... being the amount received from Indian customers for the provision of bandwidth services outside India, as equipment/ process royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and also under Article 12(3) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty ('Tax Treaty'). 6 7. Ld. AO failed to appreciate that

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -2(2)1, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4334/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

also held that the impugned receipts are to be treated as income by way of Royalty within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee and the AO passed the final assessment order following the directions ... Indian Group Company as per the agreement entered into by the assessee. The AO treated the impugned amount as Royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act r.w.Article-12 of the DTAA between India and Singapore. 13. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbaitax, Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 5091/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

made for (1) Global technology/Knowledge management, (2) Global Communication and (3) Global Brand is in the nature of Royalty as per the section 9(1)(vi) of the Income tax Act and Article 13 of the DTAA between India UK. Thus, accordingly he gave following directions for deducting ... concerning commercial or knowledge, experience or skill as contemplated in the definition of royalty as contained in clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) or under article 11(3)(a) of the India-UK tax treaty. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions