“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)

Inter Continental Hotels Group (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4608/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 144C(3)

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

Inter Continental Hotels Group (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2986/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 144C(3)

DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, whereas,

ITA 7782/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 9(1)(vi)

Assessing Officer held that the receipts from IPLC/link charges are taxable as equipment royalty in terms of clause (4a) of explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(2) read with Article 12(3)(b) of India – USA DTAA and process royalty ... terms of explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of DTAA. In the aforesaid line, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding the appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) agreed

Kony Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 7462/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

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

616/Del/2021 submissions of the assessee and ultimately concluded that the amount received is in the nature of royalty, both under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12(3) of India – USA DTAA. Learned DRP, while dealing with assessee’s objections on the issue, upheld

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, Usa

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7354/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in holding that receipts amounting to INR 88,33,78,910/- earned by the respondent from its Indian customers constitute “Royalty” under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (‘the Act’) and is eligible to be taxed as such. 2.1 That on facts ... held that the assessee had PE in India the services provided by the assessee are software services covered under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 18. Having heard the arguments of both the parties who reiterated the similar arguments taken up before the authorities below

Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5782/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Nan Lion Ship Management Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1857/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Acit (Int. Tax) – 3(3)(1), Nan Lian Ship Management 1630, 16Th Floor, Air India Llc Building Nariman Point, C/O- Chamber 2 & 3, Cosmos बिधम/ Mumbai-400 021 Trade Place, Ground Floor, Vs. Khatu Building, Opp-Bse, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcn0478E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi /Dhanlaxmi Iyer, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Das, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.11.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.05.2022, Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 2

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Das

Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

meaning of 'time charter agreement'. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that ship is an equipment within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) r.w. explanation 2 of the Act and the amount 5 I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 Nan Lian Ship Management LLC received would fall under 'royalty ... resident company who has given the ship on time charter basis to Poompuhar Shipping Corp. Ltd. is a ‘Royalty’ within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi). Thus, this issue stands squarely covered against the assessee by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of the payer itself

Pdr Solutions Fzc, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax - Circle (Intl Tax) 3(3) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1856/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka a/wFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

case and in law, the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in alleging that income from Domain Name Registration services is taxable as 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act') and under the India- UAE treaty (tax treaty"). ). The AO based on his conclusion contended that

Pdr Solutions Fzc, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax - Circle (Intl Tax) 3(3) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1855/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka a/wFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax International Taxation-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

learned DRP in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2017–18 treated the aforesaid income as royalty within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12 of India Singapore DTAA. In further proceedings, the learned DRP following the directions rendered in assessee ... learned DRP in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2017–18 treated the aforesaid income as royalty within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12 of India Singapore DTAA. In further proceedings, the learned DRP following the directions rendered in assessee

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5193/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Service Fees of Rs. 42,42,933, as royalty within the meaning of Article 13(3) of India France DTAA as well as section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. As regards the Management Service Fees received by the assessee, the AO treated the same as fees for technical services ... assessee with the Indian company in India. Accordingly, the AO came to the conclusion that income is taxable under the head royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO also held that the income is also taxable as royalty under the provisions of India France DTAA. Accordingly

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7248/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7247/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Amee Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

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

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

question of withholding tax does not arise. The AO treated the transaction as royalty by holding that as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, the income by way of royalty payable by a person who is the resident, except where the royalty is payable

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) (International Taxation), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited towards purchase of advertisement space to be in the nature of 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 10. Erred in upholding the order of the Ld JDIT that the amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited ... advertisement space to advertisers in India. The Revenue had sought to characterize these payments received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable

Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 950/BANG/2017[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 949/BANG/2017[2014 - 15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

Deputy Director of Income Tax(International Taxation), Bangalore vs. M/S Google India P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1295/BANG/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R