← 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)

Umw Sher (L) Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2346/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2346 To 2348/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2013-14 To 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 44BSection 5(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

does not fall under section 44BB as discussed above, the income received by it squarely falls under the definition of 'royalty' as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 3 ITA Nos. 2346 to 2348/DEL/2024 (AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16) 30. In view of the aforesaid discussions ... stand of the Revenue is that the receipts of the assessee from equipment rental is royalty and is taxable under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12 of India-Malaysia DTAA. The DRP while disposing of objections of the assessee

Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Limited, Elphinstone Road-West, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1454/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1454/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Cma Cgm Agencies India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Private Limited, One International Centre, Tower-3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone Road- West, Mumbai- 400013. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Patil Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.4,86,77,518/- 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ao’) & Holding That Payment Of It Services To Be In The Nature Of Royalty Under Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act/ Fees For Technical Services Under Section 9(1)(Vii) Of The Act;

For Appellant: Mahenov ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Patil
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

action of the learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and holding that payment of IT services to be in the nature of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act/ fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act; 2 2. erred in not following the ruling ... 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

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., U. S vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2344/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

received by the Appellant for sale of online journals or books constitutes royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12 of India-USA tax treaty. 2 John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... Revenue also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (TS-741-SC-2023) 16. Even as per Explanation 2 to the Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, the impugned receipts from Indian customers do not constitute consideration for grant of any rights in the copyright, hence are not taxable

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hsbc Electronic Data Processing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

payments which was decision of Karnataka High Court in case of considered as royalty under Samsung Electronics Co Ltd held that the section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. payment for purchase of licensed software was royalty and tax was required to be deducted. Wipro Ltd. (ITA The Assessee company ... same being in the nature constituted royalty or not and whether TDS of royalty as per Explanation was applicable on the same. to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act The dispute in Appellant’s case is whether and no TDS u/s.194 of the the software maintenance expenses paid

Qai India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3999/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 195Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance in spite of the fact that the same is covered under the exception clause to Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act. 5 (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts ... both on facts and in law, in confirming the aforesaid despite the fact that the payment is being covered by the exception to Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, hence the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) are not applicable on the same. 8 (i) On the facts

Qai India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3998/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 195Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance in spite of the fact that the same is covered under the exception clause to Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act. 5 (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts ... both on facts and in law, in confirming the aforesaid despite the fact that the payment is being covered by the exception to Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, hence the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) are not applicable on the same. 8 (i) On the facts

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 111/IND/2015[2013-14 (Quarter 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

services (FTS)” in terms of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) or alternatively as “royalty” in terms of Explanation 2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered ... Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. Further, the expression ‘royalty” is defined in Explanation 2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as under: “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 110/IND/2015[2013-14 (for first three quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

services (FTS)” in terms of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) or alternatively as “royalty” in terms of Explanation 2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered ... Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. Further, the expression ‘royalty” is defined in Explanation 2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as under: “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 109/IND/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

services (FTS)” in terms of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) or alternatively as “royalty” in terms of Explanation 2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered ... Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. Further, the expression ‘royalty” is defined in Explanation 2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as under: “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable

Korn Ferry (Us), California vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2393/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 270ASection 274Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

received as General Management Charges as FIS under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA as well as section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, whilst completely ignoring that these payments were in the nature of pure reimbursement and did not involve any element of income 12. That

R1 Rcm Holdco Inc. (Formerly Known As R1 Rcm Inc.), Usa vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92C

from Indian AE are in the nature of royalty for allowing access to IT infrastructure which is well covered under explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of India-USA DTAA, the same being in the nature of right to use any 3 industrial

Mixpanel Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle- 2(2)(1) Int.Taxation., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1996/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

right to use industrial, commercial or scientific experience as per the India-USA DTAA and so falls within the definition of Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) Page 5 of 21 ITA No.- 1996/Del/2022 Mixpanel Inc. Explanation 2(1) of the Act and Article 12(3) of the India ... 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

Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assessement Unit, Income Tax Department Asstt Comm. of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Mumbai

ITA 2474/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri AmolFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 270ASection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM I.T.A. No

Western Outdoor Interactive Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Mumbai

ITA 2461/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri AmolFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 270ASection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM I.T.A. No

ACIT, Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai. vs. Kpmg India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4494/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. D/R
Section 40

only case is that the professional fees paid to KPMG are in the nature of royalties within the meanings of 'explanation' to section 9(1)(vi) and is taxable under Article 12 of Indo-US DTAA. The royalties and fees for included services is taxable as per Article ... only case is that the professional fees paid to KPMG USA are in the nature of royalties within the meanings of 'explanation' to section 9(1)(vi) and is taxable under Article 12 of Indo- US DTAA. The royalties and fees for included services is taxable as per Article

The Dy.DIT, (Intl. Taxn.)- 1, Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2398/AHD/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2398/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit (International Vodafone West Ltd. बनाम/ Taxation)-1 Vodafone House Ahmedabad Corporate Road V/S. Prahladnagar Off S.G. Highway Ahmedabad-380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacf 1190 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-Gandhinagar (Ahmedabad) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 02/06/2014, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Dy.Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad (Ao) Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) The Dcit (Intl.Taxn.)-1 Vs. Vodafone West Ltd. Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 195(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

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 ... present case do not fall under the definition of royalties as per the DTAA, and hence, are not chargeable to tax in India. Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, along with Explanations-2 and 4, defines royalty for domestic purposes. However, since these provisions are not more

Celestial Vision Ltd., Bvi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2383/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

Appellant for its vessels as received for the ‘use’ of industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, thereby treating the same as "Royalty" under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred

M/S. Steer America Inc., United States vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle -1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 833/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R
Section 144CSection 147Section 148

payments cannot be brought to tax in India. The ITAT held that the payments under consideration can neither be treated as “royalty” (under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-US DTAA) nor as “FTS” (under Section 9(1

M/S. Steer America Inc., United States vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle -1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 832/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R
Section 144CSection 147Section 148

payments cannot be brought to tax in India. The ITAT held that the payments under consideration can neither be treated as “royalty” (under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-US DTAA) nor as “FTS” (under Section 9(1

Springer Nature Customer Service Center Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(2) Intl Tax New Delhi, Intl Tax New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3307/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270A

Indian journal in printed form”. 4.6 The AO treated the aforementioned three additions as royalty, and to this end, invoked the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short, “DTAA”). 5. Since the respondent/assessee was dissatisfied