“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)

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)

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

7894/Del/2017 & 7559/Del/2018 and SA Nos. 309 & 304/Del/2020 tax on the reasoning that no taxable event has happened in India in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12 of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with ... from OEMs doing business in India by selling their CDMA products, such as, handsets and other equipments is taxable as royalty income under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Though, the assessee tried to impress upon the Assessing Officer that neither of the limbs of section 9(1

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7894/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)

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

Smit Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 816/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w Ms. Miti ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chandip Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

Offshore Contracting BV in India were rendered 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 ('the Act'); 3. erred in holding that the impugned time charter services shall be covered within ... time charter services and therefore it is for the 'use' of industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, thereby treating the same as "Royalty" under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; 6. erred in holding that the impugned reimbursement of expenses shall be covered within the definition of the term "Royalty

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Int.Tax. Circle-3(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1766/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshuman Pattnaik, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 263Section 44B

held, since, the assessee leases vessels and earns lease rentals, such receipts are to be treated as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) read with explanation (2)(iva), as, it amounts to equipment royalty. While coming to such conclusion, learned CIT has observed that the assessee does

DCIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result ITA No. 723/Mum/2023 is dismissed, ITA No

ITA 723/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ajit Kumar Jain CA &

Section 142(1)Section 40Section 90

724/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA No. 726/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. BSR & Co. LLP chargeable to tax in India under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r/w Article 12 of the DTAA. 4.6 In view of the above discussion, the payments amounting to Rs.7

Transporter Industry Internatinal Gmbh, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT International Taxation, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1240/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1240/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Transporter Industry बिधम/ Dcit, Int Tax Circle- International Gmbh. 4(1)(2) Vs. Kalisrabe 57, 74076 Air India Building, Heilbronn, Germany, Pin- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 999999. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafct0013Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ao/Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 25.04.2021 Pursuant To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 18.03.2021. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature, So Dismissed. 3. Ground No. 3 Is A Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Have Passed The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Order, After The Due Date Prescribed In Section 92(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Act. Therefore, The Assessee Is Challenging The Action Of The Tpo In Passing Transfer Pricing Order After Limitation Period By Citing The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court (Db) In The Case Of M/S. Saint Gobain

For Appellant: Shri Nikil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. AR)

Section 153Section 3Section 92Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Country Inn & Suits by Raddison, Inn, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2) (1)International Taxation, Newdelhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2224/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

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

Radisson Hotels International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2223/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Radisson Hotel International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2222/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Avaya International Sales Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 958/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 9(1)(vi)

whether the payments received by the assessee towards support/maintenance services are taxable in India as Fees for Technical Services (FTS), either under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or under Article 12 of India – Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing

Avaya International Sales Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 957/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 9(1)(vi)

Atos International, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. (International Taxation) Range 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7109/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

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

assessee relates to assessment of payment received by the assessee towards providing support services to the associated enterprises as royalty/FTS under section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of the Act and also under Article 13 of the DTAA entered between India and France. 2. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee ... received payments towards the same. The Assessing Officer has treated the same as royalty and fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act 2 Atos International 1961 and also under Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance between India and France

Owens Corning Inc., Mumbai vs. The Dy Comm of Income Tax (International Tax), Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

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

Assessing Officer in assessing the lease rental income of Rs. 14.88 crores received by it from its Associated Enterprises as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12 of the DTAA entered between the India and USA. 2. The assessee herein ... alloys cannot be treated as royalty in the hands of the assessee in terms of India-USA DTAA and also under provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T. Act. For the sake of convenience we extract below the operative portion of the order passed by the Tribunal

Factiva Ltd. C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Lltp, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1247/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Section 9(1)(vi)

royalty under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA. So we hereby set aside the addition made by the AO under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 1313) of India- UK DTAA and as such ordered to be deleted the same.” 11. The Tribunal had referred

Goldman Sachs & Co., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1264/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

recovery of market data charges amounting to Rs 237,564,324 on the basis that the same qualifies as Royalty under the section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-US DTAA as well, without appreciating the fact that these constitute expenses allocated ... recovery of market data charges amounting to Rs 29,18,25,488 on the basis that the same qualifies as Royalty under the section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-US DTAA as well, without appreciating the fact that these constitute expenses allocated

Goldman Sachs & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6005/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

Goldman Sachs & Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7490/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

Goldman Sachs & Company, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 401/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

I.A.R. Systems Aktiebolag, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 598/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

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

learned Deputy Commissioner erred in taxing income of Rs. 2,88,87,790 as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12 of the India-Sweden Tax Treaty. 3. The learned Deputy Commissioner erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount ... Assessee's receipts from Indian customers, is held to be taxable in India as Royalty as per amended definition of Royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, amended by the Financial Act, 2012 as well as Article 12 of India- Sweden DTAA. Accordingly, he brought

Expeditors International of Washington, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

charges amounting to INR 82,89,622 received by the Appellant from EI India is in nature of royalty under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. 5. That without prejudice to any other ground of appeal