“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)

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT(International Taxation)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4775/MUM/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos.201 To 233/Mum/2021, : A.Ys : 2018-19 & 4800 To 4804/Mum/2019 & 2019-20 4810 To 4814/Mum/2019 Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Vs. Deputy Commissioner One International Center, Of Income Tax, (It) - Tower 3, 27Th - 32Nd Floor, 2(1)(2) Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai 400021 Elphinstone Road, (W) Mumbai 400013 [Pan: Aacfd4815A] Ita Nos. 4744, 4775 To : A.Y : 2018-19 4782/Mum/2019 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Vs. Deputy Commissioner India Llp, Of Income Tax, (It) - Indiabulls Finance Centre 2(1)(2) Tower 3, 27Th-32Nd Floor, Mumbai 400021 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, (W) Mumbai 400013 [Pan: Aalfd7157J]

For Appellant: Shri P.J PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 195

concerning commercial or knowledge, experience or skill as contemplated in the definition of royalty as contained in clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) or under article 11(3)(a) of the India-UK tax treaty. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4744/MUM/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.J PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 195

M/S Kennametal Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

ITA 1658/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 143(3)

provisions of the Act can override the provisions of the DTAA, the Hon’ble Court held that Explanation 4 was inserted in section 9(1)(vi) of the ITA in 2012 to clarify that the "transfer of all or any rights" in respect of any right, property, or information included ... transfer of all or any right for use or right to use a computer software". The court ruled that Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) expanded the scope of royalty under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). Prior to the aforesaid amendment, a payment could only be treated

Internaitonal Hotel Licensing Company Sarl, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2951/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Paras Salva a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)

therefore the entire consideration received by the assessee from the Indian Hotel Owner under the IMPPA is taxable in India as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Further, the assessing officer held that the services provided by the assessee both within and outside India in the form

Global Hospitality Licensing Company Sarl, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7736/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Paras Salva a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 9

therefore the entire consideration received by the assessee from the Indian Hotel Owner under the IMPPA is taxable in India as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as relevant provisions Global Hospitality Licensing Company SARL ITA no.7736/Mum./2014 of DTAA. Further, following the ruling

Interactive Avenues Pvt. Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3130/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 40

using the same to develop its business. Accordingly, the payments made to Facebook get squarely covered under the provision – Explanation 2(iii) to Section 9(1)(vi) : the use of any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property and also the provisions ... Explanation 2(iva) to section 9(1)(vi) : the use or right to use any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. Therefore, the payments made to Facebook amounting to Rs.26,29,79,222/- is treated as Royalty and hence tax should have been deducted u/s 195 at the time of payment/credit

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

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

ITA 741/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

first issue arising in assessee‟s appeal is pertaining to taxation of lease rentals received by the assessee as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12 of India USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). Owens Corning Inc. ITA No.741/Mum./2021 4. The brief ... discussed in detail in assessment order of earlier years, treated the lease rentals received by the assessee as Royalty income as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(4) of the DTAA. 5. The assessee filed detailed objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel

DCIT (It) -4(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1759/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

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

DCIT (It) -4 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1758/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

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

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1453/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

DCIT Cent, Cir-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1799/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sidhharth Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 32Section 4

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR

ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2549/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Jangid, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 40Section 90

Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the amount payable to them was 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.6

The Dy.Citi -Cir 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Park Air Systems Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2362/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashish K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

Systems Ltd. ITA No.2362/Mum./2021 issued by Airport Authority of India, for offshore supply of software should not be considered as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13(2) of the India and UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). In reply, assessee submitted that

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Range-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

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

parallel treaties. The Court delivered its judgment in the context of the very amendments that are in question today; the Explanations to Section 9(1)(vi) vis a vis the interpretation of a Double Tax Avoidance Agreement. This Court rejected that any amendment could change the situation and render ... Information Systems & Management Consultants (P) Ltd., 226 Taxman 319 The issue whether the amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 in Section 9(1)(vi) by way of Explanations inserted in the Incometax Act with retrospective effect can be read into DTAA or not has to be seen in the light

Factiva Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6455/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

Section 13(3)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

Learned AO') and the Dispute Resolution Panel ('the DRP') erred in holding the sum of INR2,82,15,036 as 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('the DTAA') entered into between India ... Officer (AO) in its draft assessment order proceeded to hold that payment made by DJCIPL to the assessee was taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) read with section 13(3)(a) of India-UK DTAA as the payment

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised various objections alleging that, the amount paid by the assessee cannot be considered neither to be ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) r.w. Expl. 5 & 6, nor Fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) or the Act. The assessee submitted on following prepositions ... 1)(vi) of the Act, as well as, under Article 12 of the India UK DTAA relying on Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act which has retrospective effect. Page 10 IT(IT)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 2.22 The Ld.CIT(A) also held that

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

that is much later than the closure of the FY 2010-11. Subsequently, the Finance Act 2012 also introduced, retrospectively, Explanation 4 to section 9(1 (vi) of the Act to clarify that payments for, inter alia. License to use computer software would qualify as royalty. During ... have the benefit of clarification brought by the respective amendment. As such, for the FY 2010-11, in light of the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with judicial guidance on the taxation of computer software payments, tax was not required to be deducted at source

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. The ACIT (Int. Tax) 2(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 2040/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranith Golecha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 234BSection 9

Rs.74,18,49,195/- from sale of “shrink wrapped software” taxable in India being in the nature of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as article 12(13) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India ... assessee from the sale of “shrink wrapped software” being a copy righted article would not be construed as royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(13) of the DTAA between India and the USA. Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

DCIT Cir. 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Smartconnect Technologies Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1317/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Smartconnect Dcit Cir – 15(3)(2), Tehcnologies Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, बिधम/ A-702, Harbour View, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. Sector-19, Nerul, Navi K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 706 400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaocs87763B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Rajesh S. Shah, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)

For Appellant: Shri Milind ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh S. Shah

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

assessee to its AE for the purchase of the application software named Genesys for reselling is treated as royalty within the meaning of section 9(1) (vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on which no tax is deducted at source by the assessee company." ii) "On the facts ... treating the purchase of software „GENESYS‟ and for reselling it customer in India which has been treated as „royalty‟ within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that, assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of information technology