← 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)

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

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

ITA 5089/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

Shell International Petroeum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5509/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

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

ITA 3053/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

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

ITA 3049/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Ms Va Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

ITA 2256/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, 'Wabag House” No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Chennai. [Pan: Aabcv 0225G] आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2256, 2257 & 2258/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Income Tax, 'Wabag House” Central Circle 3(2) No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Chennai. S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 2

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

source whatsoever. As per the assessee, they were working for its business carried on in Nigeria and hence, by virtue of Section 9(1) (vi)(b) of the Act, the fees payable to such nonresidents could not be considered as income accruing or arising to them in India. We find ... India would directly apply to the said non-resident consultants and Chennai whether the income accrue to them in India or abroad, as section 9(1)(vi)(b) is a deeming provision." [Emphasis supplied] 17. It is clear from the above that the payments made by the assessee

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2248/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, 'Wabag House” No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G] Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2256, 2257 & 2258/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Income Tax, 'Wabag House” Central Circle 3(2) No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Chennai. S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 2

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

source whatsoever. As per the assessee, they were working for its business carried on in Nigeria and hence, by virtue of Section 9(1) (vi)(b) of the Act, the fees payable to such nonresidents could not be considered as income accruing or arising to them in India. We find ... India would directly apply to the said non-resident consultants and Chennai whether the income accrue to them in India or abroad, as section 9(1)(vi)(b) is a deeming provision." [Emphasis supplied] 17. It is clear from the above that the payments made by the assessee

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2247/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, IRS, JCIT

source whatsoever. As per the assessee, they were working for its business carried on in Nigeria and hence, by virtue of Section 9(1) (vi)(b) of the Act, the fees payable to such nonresidents could not be considered as income accruing or arising to them in India. We find ... India would directly apply to the said non-resident consultants and Chennai whether the income accrue to them in India or abroad, as section 9(1)(vi)(b) is a deeming provision." [Emphasis supplied] 17. It is clear from the above that the payments made by the assessee

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2246/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, IRS, JCIT

source whatsoever. As per the assessee, they were working for its business carried on in Nigeria and hence, by virtue of Section 9(1) (vi)(b) of the Act, the fees payable to such nonresidents could not be considered as income accruing or arising to them in India. We find ... India would directly apply to the said non-resident consultants and Chennai whether the income accrue to them in India or abroad, as section 9(1)(vi)(b) is a deeming provision." [Emphasis supplied] 17. It is clear from the above that the payments made by the assessee

DCIT(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, Mumbai

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

ITA 5715/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 195Section 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rhc Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.P Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

record, we are of the view that the amount received by the assessee will not fall within the definition of royalty both under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12(3) of India-USA DTAA. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete ... 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (I.T) -3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mott Macdonald Limited, Mumbai

In the result all appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5728/MUM/2024[2021 22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

following additions in the Order: Nature of Amount (Rs.) Taxability as per Ld. AO charges Software charges 3,73,57,628 Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13(3)(a) of the DTAA IT SIS charges 16,47,60,188 FTS under section 9 ... transferred for the consideration to be treated as royalty. 5.2. The Ld.AR submitted that, though the legislature introduced the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) by Finance Act 2012, enlarging the definition of royalty to tax the receipts for use of computer software as royalty. He submitted that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (I.T) -3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mott Macdonald Limited, Mumbai

In the result all appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5727/MUM/2024[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

following additions in the Order: Nature of Amount (Rs.) Taxability as per Ld. AO charges Software charges 3,73,57,628 Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13(3)(a) of the DTAA IT SIS charges 16,47,60,188 FTS under section 9 ... transferred for the consideration to be treated as royalty. 5.2. The Ld.AR submitted that, though the legislature introduced the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) by Finance Act 2012, enlarging the definition of royalty to tax the receipts for use of computer software as royalty. He submitted that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (I.T) -3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mott Macdonald Limited, Mumbai

In the result all appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5726/MUM/2024[2020 21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

following additions in the Order: Nature of Amount (Rs.) Taxability as per Ld. AO charges Software charges 3,73,57,628 Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13(3)(a) of the DTAA IT SIS charges 16,47,60,188 FTS under section 9 ... transferred for the consideration to be treated as royalty. 5.2. The Ld.AR submitted that, though the legislature introduced the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) by Finance Act 2012, enlarging the definition of royalty to tax the receipts for use of computer software as royalty. He submitted that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (I.T) -3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mott Macdonald Limited, Mumbai

In the result all appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5725/MUM/2024[2019 20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

following additions in the Order: Nature of Amount (Rs.) Taxability as per Ld. AO charges Software charges 3,73,57,628 Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13(3)(a) of the DTAA IT SIS charges 16,47,60,188 FTS under section 9 ... transferred for the consideration to be treated as royalty. 5.2. The Ld.AR submitted that, though the legislature introduced the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) by Finance Act 2012, enlarging the definition of royalty to tax the receipts for use of computer software as royalty. He submitted that

DCIT (International Taxation)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mott Macdonald Limited, Mumbai

In the result all appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3048/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

following additions in the Order: Nature of Amount (Rs.) Taxability as per Ld. AO charges Software charges 3,73,57,628 Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13(3)(a) of the DTAA IT SIS charges 16,47,60,188 FTS under section 9 ... transferred for the consideration to be treated as royalty. 5.2. The Ld.AR submitted that, though the legislature introduced the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) by Finance Act 2012, enlarging the definition of royalty to tax the receipts for use of computer software as royalty. He submitted that

DCIT (International Taxation) 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mott Macdonald Limited., Mumbai

In the result all appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3047/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

following additions in the Order: Nature of Amount (Rs.) Taxability as per Ld. AO charges Software charges 3,73,57,628 Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13(3)(a) of the DTAA IT SIS charges 16,47,60,188 FTS under section 9 ... transferred for the consideration to be treated as royalty. 5.2. The Ld.AR submitted that, though the legislature introduced the Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) by Finance Act 2012, enlarging the definition of royalty to tax the receipts for use of computer software as royalty. He submitted that

ITO (International Taxation), Ward- Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Hartaj Sewa Singh, Kolkata

ITA 1694/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 195Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

appreciating that the payment made by the assessee to Star Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Singapore also falls under 'Royalty' in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the I T Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the India- Singapore DTAA, as the services provided by foreign entity was advisory in nature ... appreciating that the payment made by the assessee to Star Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Singapore also falls under ‘Royalty’ in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the I T Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the India- Singapore DTAA, as the services provided by foreign entity was advisory in nature

ITO (International Taxation), Ward- Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Hartaj Sewa Singh, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1693/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 195Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

appreciating that the payment made by the assessee to Star Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Singapore also falls under ‘Royalty’ in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the I T Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the India- Singapore DTAA, as the services provided by foreign entity was advisory in nature ... appreciating that the payment made by the assessee to Star Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Singapore also falls under ‘Royalty’ in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the I T Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the India- Singapore DTAA, as the services provided by foreign entity was advisory in nature

Same Deutz Fahr Italia Spa, Italy vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/CHNY/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250o

Madras) wherein it is held as under: "8. As far as royalty on export sales is concerned, that amount is also exempt under section 9(1)(vi). Though the royalty was paid by a resident in India, it cannot be said that it was deemed to have accrued or arisen ... taxable. The Appellate Tribunal was therefore correct in holding that the royalty on export sales is not taxable within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi). 9. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

Buro Happpold Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4350/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta/ Nishit ParikhFor Respondent: Shri S. G. Menon, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Fees for Technical Services as both Royalty and Fees for Technical Services as both Royalty and Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') as per Section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 13 of ('FTS') as per Section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1 ... Article 13 of ('FTS') as per Section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 13 of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 3. Ground No. III - Erroneous rate of tax applied while computing Erroneous rate of tax applied