“Section 9(1)(vi)”

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

hold that income arose in India in terms of Section 5 of the Act as the CIT(A) only referred to Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Section 9 of the Act only deals with income which is „deemed to accrue or arise‟ in India and, therefore, even ... arise‟. However, Article 12(3) of DTAA provided a narrower definition of „royalties‟ as compared to the one contained in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the meaning and purport of „arise‟ as used in Article 12(2) or „arising in a contracting state

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

hold that income arose in India in terms of Section 5 of the Act as the CIT(A) only referred to Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Section 9 of the Act only deals with income which is „deemed to accrue or arise‟ in India and, therefore, even ... arise‟. However, Article 12(3) of DTAA provided a narrower definition of „royalties‟ as compared to the one contained in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the meaning and purport of „arise‟ as used in Article 12(2) or „arising in a contracting state

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

hold that income arose in India in terms of Section 5 of the Act as the CIT(A) only referred to Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Section 9 of the Act only deals with income which is „deemed to accrue or arise‟ in India and, therefore, even ... arise‟. However, Article 12(3) of DTAA provided a narrower definition of „royalties‟ as compared to the one contained in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the meaning and purport of „arise‟ as used in Article 12(2) or „arising in a contracting state

M/S Owens Coming Inc, Mumbai vs. The DCIT(Intl Tax) Circle 3(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 459/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Owens-Corning Inc. C/O.Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aaaco-3242-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue By Way Of Following Grounds Of Appeal:

rentals received by the appellant of Rs.5,31,93,808 during the year under consideration by treating the same as 'royalty' as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India

Owens Corning Composite Materials Llc, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)- Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6804/मुं/ 2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Owens-Corning Composite Materials Llc C/O.Owens Cornining (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aabco-4236-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short “The Act”] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Two Grounds. In Ground No.1 Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed The Findings Of Assessing Officer In Treating Amount Received On Reimbursement Of Software Supplied By The Assessee To Its Indian Subsidiary As ‘Royalty’. In Ground No.2 Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed Short Credit Of Tds.

Representative further submits that the payments received by the assessee from its Indian AE are in the nature of royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The ld.Departmental Representative submits that the case of the assessee does not fall in any of the categories as mentioned ... copyrighted article, such payment is not in the nature of ‘Royalty’, hence, the same is not taxable under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 6 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis (supra) while dealing with bunch of appeals has grouped

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalrenaissance Services Bv, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 Pan: Aaecr4995E ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent

reservation systems property management systems and other systems to the Indian hotels under the TCSA were not in the nature of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act respectively as well as under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands tax treaty: 3. The Ld' CIT(A) erred

Spencer Stuart International B.V. Tax, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It) -4(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Assessing Officer is completely misconceived and is liable to be set- aside and we hold that no charge can be made out under Section 9(1)(vi) read with Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty qua the impugned sum of Executive search fee. 14. In the result

Spencer Stuart International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Assessing Officer is completely misconceived and is liable to be set- aside and we hold that no charge can be made out under Section 9(1)(vi) read with Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty qua the impugned sum of Executive search fee. 14. In the result

M/S Iqvia Ag (Previously Known As Ims Ag, Switzerland vs. The DCIT (Intl Tax) 2(2) 2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Iqvia Ag Dcit (It) – 2(2)(2) V. (Previously Known As Ims Ag) 16Th Floor, Air India Building C/O. Iqvia Consulting & Nariman Point Information Services India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 Unit No. 902, 9Th Floor Supreme Business Park Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aacci5872K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Ms. Bharati Singh

Rs.44,34,93,451/- in the nature of Subscription Fees for standard online market research database on pharmaceutical sector taxed as Royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and under Article 12(3) of the India- Switzerland Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty") 1 ... online database of statistically compiled pharmaceutical data collected from public domain ("IQVIA Reports") is in the nature of 'Royalty as defined under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty 2. The AO/ DRP erred in not appreciating that

American Chemical Society, Gurgaon vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

chargeable to tax as royalty in terms of Article 12(3) of India-US Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") and under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP have erred ... being received for the use or right to use copyright in a literary or scientific work within the meaning of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of India-US DTAA. 2.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case

American Chemical Society, Gurgaon vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

chargeable to tax as royalty in terms of Article 12(3) of India-US Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") and under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP have erred ... being received for the use or right to use copyright in a literary or scientific work within the meaning of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of India-US DTAA. 2.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Spe India Films Holding Llc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) -4(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

Appellant on account of distribution of theatrical rights in India, is covered under the specific exemption provided by Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, pertaining to consideration received for the sale, distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films and accordingly, not taxable in India. 1.3. The Appellant ... respect to distribution of theatrical nights as the same is not taxable in India as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2. Interest income of INR 28,48,508 taxed twice and at a higher rate 2.1. The learned ACIT erred in considering total income