← 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)

M/S Six Continents Hotels Inc., Gurgaon vs. The Dy CIT Circle-4(2)(1), International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 6657/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: S/Shri S.K. Aggarwal a/w Siddesh Chaugule
Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not appreciating that the Marketing and Reservation contribution received from Indian hotels is neither taxable as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act nor under Article 12(3) of the India - USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 1.4 On the facts and in circumstances

M/S Six Continents Hotels Inc., Gurgaon vs. Dy CIT Circle 4 (2)(1)(Inter National Taxation), Mumbai

ITA 6656/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri S.K. Aggarwal a/w Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not appreciating that the Marketing and Reservation contribution received from Indian hotels is neither taxable as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act nor under Article 12(3) of the India - USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 1.4 On the facts and in circumstances

Six Continents Hotels Inc., Gurgaon vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 6655/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri S.K. Aggarwal a/w Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not appreciating that the Marketing and Reservation contribution received from Indian hotels is neither taxable as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act nor under Article 12(3) of the India - USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 1.4 On the facts and in circumstances

Six Continents Hotels, Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 3662/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri S.K. Aggarwal a/w Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not appreciating that the Marketing and Reservation contribution received from Indian hotels is neither taxable as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act nor under Article 12(3) of the India - USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 1.4 On the facts and in circumstances

New Skies Satellites B.V., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2944/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2020-21] 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 Appellant By Ms. Ananya Bajpayee, Adv. Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr & Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

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

Fsl Projects Limited (Formerly Frontline Soft Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle14(3) (TDS), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1080/HYD/2003[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Feb 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Saketh Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 192(2)Section 195Section 195(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee made payments to IGTL Solutions (USA) and True Dial Technologies INC, without deducting the tax at source under section 195 read with section 9(1)(vi) and (vii) of the Act. According to the learned Assessing Officer the assessee having not made any deduction of tax at source without

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), International Taxation, Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Tata Communication (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 865/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.864, 865/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Tata Communications (Uk) Ltd., Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Bengaluru. Street London Ec4V3Bj, United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.2, 3/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 864, 865/Bang/2023) Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 M/S. Tata Communictions (Uk) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Street London Ec4V3Bj, Bengaluru. United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Department & Cross- Objections (Co) By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

assesee from VSL for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were not liable to be taxed in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act nor under the relevant DTAA. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contentions on the legal grounds and held that reopening

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), International Taxation, Bengaluru vs. Tata Communication (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 864/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.864, 865/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Tata Communications (Uk) Ltd., Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Bengaluru. Street London Ec4V3Bj, United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.2, 3/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 864, 865/Bang/2023) Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 M/S. Tata Communictions (Uk) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Street London Ec4V3Bj, Bengaluru. United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Department & Cross- Objections (Co) By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

assesee from VSL for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were not liable to be taxed in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act nor under the relevant DTAA. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contentions on the legal grounds and held that reopening

DCIT-International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 133ASection 201Section 250

transaction. Since the AY is AY 2010-11 (ie, prior to the Finance Act, 2012 amendment by way of inserting Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, as per the SC in its judgment, the Finance Act, 2012 amendment has to be read as expanding the scope ... assessment years (para 73 - 74, 78 and 79). Therefore, the payments made under the customer contracts are not be treated as “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act itself for the subject AY 2010-11, even without reference to the DTAA. Under the DTAA, clearly these

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1025/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 133ASection 201Section 250

transaction. Since the AY is AY 2010-11 (ie, prior to the Finance Act, 2012 amendment by way of inserting Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, as per the SC in its judgment, the Finance Act, 2012 amendment has to be read as expanding the scope ... assessment years (para 73 - 74, 78 and 79). Therefore, the payments made under the customer contracts are not be treated as “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act itself for the subject AY 2010-11, even without reference to the DTAA. Under the DTAA, clearly these

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1024/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.1023 To 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 133ASection 201Section 250

transaction. Since the AY is AY 2010-11 (ie, prior to the Finance Act, 2012 amendment by way of inserting Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, as per the SC in its judgment, the Finance Act, 2012 amendment has to be read as expanding the scope ... assessment years (para 73 - 74, 78 and 79). Therefore, the payments made under the customer contracts are not be treated as “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act itself for the subject AY 2010-11, even without reference to the DTAA. Under the DTAA, clearly these

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1023/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.1023 To 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023

Section 133ASection 201Section 250

IT(IT)A Nos. 1023 to 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023 Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A

B Y K Asia Pacific Private Limited, India Branch, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation), Circle-1, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 207/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri H. Ananda
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA

DCIT Intl. Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi vs. Dassault Systemes Biovia K.K., Japan

ITA 1253/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri S.S. TomarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

shrink- wrapped software was not in nature of royalty and, hence, was not liable to tax in India in view of provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as article 12(3) of DTAA between India and USA. 8.4 Further, the AR placed reliance on another

DCIT, Circle 1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Dassault Systems Biovia K.K., Japan

ITA 1252/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri S.S. TomarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

shrink- wrapped software was not in nature of royalty and, hence, was not liable to tax in India in view of provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as article 12(3) of DTAA between India and USA. 8.4 Further, the AR placed reliance on another

Ge Precision Healthcare Llc, Usa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2623/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 270ASection 56Section 9(1)(vii)

domestic law to rectify a situation of mistaken interpretation can spontaneously further their case in an international treaty, Therefore, mere amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) cannot result in a change. It 18 imperative * that such amendment is brought about in the agreement as well. Any attempt short of this ... income sought to be taxed is the receipts from sublicensing of software licences. Therefore, ordinarily, the income can be characterized as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the DTAA. In case, it is not taxable as royalty income, it can be treated

ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi vs. Westin Hotel Management L.P., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2391/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 143(3)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

well as the relationship between the two parties. We have already done this exercise in the context of issue relating to applicability of section 9(1)(vi) read with Explanation 2 and after examining and analyzing all the relevant clauses and articles of the said agreements in detail, we have ... promotion. He has contended that since the same come within the purview of one or the other clauses contained in Explanation 2 to section 9(1 )(vi) and (vii) as well as Article 12(3) and 12(4) of the DTAA between India and USA, the payment/consideration attributable

ACIT Intl Taxation Circle 3(1)(2), Delhi vs. Starwood (M) International Inc, Noida

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2390/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraacit Vs. Starwood (M) International International Taxation Inc, A-109, C/O. M/S. Nangia Circle – 3(1)(2) & Co. Llp, Sector-136, Noida Delhi Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301 Pan No. Aancs 4030 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Arora & Shri Vishal Misra, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.01.2024

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

well as the relationship between the two parties. We have already done this exercise in the context of issue relating to applicability of section 9(1)(vi) read with Explanation 2 and after examining and analyzing all the relevant clauses and articles of the said agreements in detail, we have ... promotion. He has contended that since the same come within the purview of one or the other clauses contained in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) and (vii) as well as Article 12(3) and 12(4) of the DTAA between India and USA, the payment/consideration attributable

Dialog Axiata Plc, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2643/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 144CSection 147Section 191Section 195Section 5

transfer of rights and neither was it a secret formula or process which consideration would be “Royalty” as per Explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The ld. AR also contended that the said receipt from VSL was otherwise a business income which cannot be taxed ... India under Article 7 of the DTAA. The ld. AR contended that the lower authorities have relied on Explanation 5 and 6 of section 9(1)(vi) inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.ef. 01.06.1976 which has widen the scope of ‘royalty' and stated that the same would be applicable

Hgc Global Communications Limited, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 28/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.28/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hcg Global Communications Ltd., Vs. Dcit (It), 16/F Hutchison Telecom Tower, Circle – 2(2), 99 Cheung Fai Road, Bengaluru. Hong Kong. Pan : Aaech 5871 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Vikram Udupa, Cas Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2024 O R D E R Per George George K:

For Appellant: S/Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Vikram Udupa, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 195(2)Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

regard to the payment received from Vodafone Idea Ltd., for interconnect usage charges, whether it is liable to be taxed as “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO/DRP had brought the amount to tax in the hands of the assessee company solely relying on the orders ... second question for consideration is whether the ITAT was correct in holding that the amendment to provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) inserting the Explanations will result in amendment of DTAA. The answer to this question must be in the negative becausein Engineering Analysis, the Apex Court has held that