“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)

Springer Nature Customer Service Center Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT-3(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

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

ITA 2420/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

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

Rane Engine Valve Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 885/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

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 satisfy the requirement of technical services as contained in DTAA. Therefore the liability to tax is not attracted. Accordingly the first substantial

Rane Engine Valve Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 2815/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

Rane Engine Valve Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1477/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1498/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1497/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

Blackline Systems, Inc., California, United States vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3798/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

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 appellant have no application

Snc Lavalin Inc., Delhi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3691/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1575/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

India Switzerland DTAA. In view of the above, the payment for software and licensing fees are taxable as royalty as per Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and as per Article 12 (3) of the India Switzerland DTAA. 7. The assessee has contended that the above payments

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1574/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1573/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Ag, Mumbai

ITA 2179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2153/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL

New Skies Satellites B.V., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2733/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year : 2021-22] New Skies Satellites B.V., Vs Dcit, C/O-Ernst & Young Llp, Golf Cirlce-2(2)(2), View Corporate Tower, Tower-B, International Taxation, Sector-42, Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaccn1866C Appellant Respondent Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Appellant By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent By S/Shri Vivek K. Upadhayay, Sr. Dr & Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2024 Order Per G.S. Pannu, Vp : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Dcit, Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi Dated 28.08.2023. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

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 ... circumstances of the 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

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore

ITA 811/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.811/Bang/2024 & Sp No.22/Bang/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property;' 7.2.1 The term "process" used under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) in the definition of 'royalty' does not imply any 'process' which is publicly available. The term "process" occurring under clauses ... Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) means a "process" which is an item of intellectual property. Clause (iii) of the said Explanation reads as follows: "(iii) the use of any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property" Clauses

ACIT Circle 25(1), New Delhi vs. Verizon Communications India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 360/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

made in the definition of ‘Royalty’ under the Act vide Finance Act, 2012 by way of insertion of Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot override the beneficial provisions of tax treaties. The assessee also pointed out before the AO that its case ... disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act by holding payments made by the assessee to MCICS and MCII as ‘Royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 4. In appeal, before CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that its case is squarely covered by the decision

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 978/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

holding that, the payment made was towards the ‘use of copyright’ and therefore, is taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee capitalised the software purchased and the expenditure was not claimed as revenue by the assessee ... 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 Page 14 ITA/IT

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 958/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

M/S Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 484/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedappeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

holding that, the payment made was towards the 'use of copyright' and therefore, is taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee capitalised the software purchased and the expenditure was not claimed as revenue by the assessee

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle - 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1166/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40