“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)

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

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

ITA 4517/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 195(2)

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 (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Uk

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

ITA 4515/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 195(2)

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 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 Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

treatment of payment received for supply of software license to the entities as under, treated as royalty by the AO under section 9(1)(vi) read with the applicable Treaty: i) Bharat Oman Refiners Ltd. (BORL) : Rs.9,89,167/- ii) Bharat Petroleum Corpn Ltd. (BPCL) : Rs.18,79,417/- Rs.28 ... standard software to certain Indian entities. The Assessing Officer taxed the aforesaid amounts as software royalty in the hands of the assessee under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with the applicable Treaty law. While holding receipts as royalty payment, the DRP primarily relied upon the decision

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2358/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(i)

become redundant as they deem income to be taxable in India based "situs of the payer.  Reliance is placed on the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act "Fees for technical services which deems FTS to be taxable in India based on situs of the payer.  In contrast

Criteo Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Ciricle 1(2)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2122/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

amounting to INR 1,90,33,349 and receipts from provision of advertisement space amounting to INR 6,09,254 as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and under Article 12(3) of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’), without appreciating that the said receipts ... assessee as follows: S. No. Nature of service rendered Basis for Taxation Amount (INR) Access to data center for Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) 1. 1,90,33,349 data storage facility of the Act and under Article Provision of advertisement 12(3) of India - Singapore

Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle2(1)(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2373/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 197Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1662/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1255/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1662/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1), 560, 562, 7H Century Plaza, Vs. Chennai. Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Has Common Issues. First We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-01-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

payments falls in the nature of "fees for included services" under Article 12 4(a) of India-USA DTAA and explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly whether on the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law. is it correct on the part of Ld. CIT/A ... activities and geographic rules of source of income recede to the background and are not of any relevance in considering the question under Section 9(1)(vi) read with Explanation 2. Thus, more so when it comes to the question of dealing with issues arising on account of more complex

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1255/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Lnrs Data Services Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Civic Centre

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2618/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(C)

Alternatively, the AO has also held that the said receipts are in the nature of royalty and thus, the same is taxable under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and also under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. Similar facts and issues are involved

Lnrs Data Services Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Civic Centre

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2617/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(C)

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1) Intl.Taxation, Delhi vs. Hcl Technologies Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1392/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

construed as FTS. (Para no.33, Page No.66) to the Re: (i)Income of the foreign AEs not taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act due to exclusions contained in sub- clause (b) Services utilized in a business carried on outside India by the Assessee

Hireright Llc, United States of America vs. Deputy Assisstant Comissioner of Income Tax International Tax Gurugram, Gurugram

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

ITA 1915/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Kunal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR

Section 13Section 14Section 9(1)(vi)

during the year under consideration on account of screening services provided to Indian clients are royalty or not under section 9(1)(vi) and article 12 of India-US tax treaty. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We have perused

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, Civic Centre Minto Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3742/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshqualcomm Incorporated, Vs. Dcit, 5775, Morehouse Drive, Circle-3(1), San Diego, California, International Taxation, Usa, 92121, Usa New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacq1484H Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv Ms. Jasmin Amalsadavala, Adv Shri Zoheb Balwani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, Cit Dr Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT DR

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

licensing of Private Limited would be subject to Patents Xiaomi Technology India tax in India under 8,07,19,63,310 Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of Private Limited the Act. Oppo Mobiles India Private 4 8,64,17,92,607 Limited 5 Reliance Retail Limited ... royalty received from non-resident OEMs who have reported sales in India should not be taxed as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12 of India USA Tax Treaty. 8. The Learned AO based on the findings recorded by his predecessor in assessee

Dassault SystÈMes Soildworks Corporaion, Chennai vs. ACIT (International Taxation)_2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4534/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Kumar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

that the income from sale of shrink-wrapped software is taxable in India, being in the nature of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") between India ... that software is a process or a property similar to patent, invention, design, secret formula, process, etc as defined under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2.6. The learned AO has erred in law in stating that the retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vi

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 585/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.585/Mum/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cma Cgm Agencies Acit, Circle-6(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. India Private Limited, 407, City Tower, Boat Club Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Prakash L. Pathade Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing The Ao To Delete The Addition Of Rs.9,06,53,035/- Made By Ao On Account Of Expenditure For It Service Charges U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act, 1961 Treating Such Expense Incurred By The Assessee Company As Fees For Technical Services/Royalty?

For Appellant: Mahenov ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

artistic or scientific work ….’. To this extent, the definition of `royalties’ as per the DTAA with Portuguese is similar to that given under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act in as much as it also talks of `consideration for the use or, or the right to use, any copyright

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1149/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1149/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Doosan Power Systems India Income Tax, V. Private Limited, Corporate Circle -1(1), 18/2A, Sennerkuppam, Bye Chennai. Pass Road, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan:Aabcb-5946-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, CA

Section 144BSection 147Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

without appreciating the fact that the consideration paid to Hyupjin Shipping Co. Ltd, Korea fall within the ambit of provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances made u/s.40(a)(i) of the IT Act without appreciating the fact ... that the payment of freight charges to HSC as above qualifies as Royalty for the use of equipment (ship) under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act/Article 12 of the :-4-: ITA. No: 1149/Chny/2023 India-Korea tax-treaty. Thus, the freight charges of Rs.61

Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR

Section 28Section 40Section 92C

favour of the assessee.” 17. We note that identical is the situation in the present case of assessee, wherein, provisions of section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2 was invoked in respect of the payment made towards purchase of software that was capitalised on which depreciation u/s. 32 was claimed ... Court in para 100 held as under: “100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengalore vs. Google Ireland Limited, Dublin

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member), SHRI KESAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Tandon, Ms. Nandita Phal & Shri AnmolFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(50)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90Section 90A

appreciate the law that the sale of advertisement spaces by Google Ireland is an income in the nature o(f) Royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 and as per article 12 of India-Ireland DTAA? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances ... taxable in the hands of GIL in India under the Act and India-Ireland DTAA as royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO noted that the ITAT, Bangalore has held the payments made to GIL towards Adwords program as royalty. 4. Based