← 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)

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1073/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1071/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1070/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1069/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1066/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1065/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 988/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 987/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S

DCIT (It)-4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Taj Tv. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1718/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee to non-residents are specifically covered by Explanations 2, 5 and 6 and hence fall under definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; xiii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking ... into account that Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify

DCIT (It) -4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1717/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee to non-residents are specifically covered by Explanations 2, 5 and 6 and hence fall under definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; xiii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking ... into account that Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation -4(1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1462/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee to non-residents are specifically covered by Explanations 2, 5 and 6 and hence fall under definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; xiii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking ... into account that Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) -4 (1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1461/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee to non-residents are specifically covered by Explanations 2, 5 and 6 and hence fall under definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; xiii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking ... into account that Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify

Taj Tv Ltd, Mauritius vs. DCIT (International Taxation)- 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1460/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee to non-residents are specifically covered by Explanations 2, 5 and 6 and hence fall under definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; xiii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking ... into account that Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify

M/S. Iqvia Ag (Previously Known As 'Ims Ag', Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1203/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

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. On the facts and in the circumstances ... from doctors, stockist, dealers and other sources i.e. data available in the public domain and none of the clauses of Explanation 2 of section 9(1) (vi) of the Act which defines the term 'Royalty' are satisfied and also does not fall within the definition of 'Royalty' as per Article

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

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

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

received by the Appellant from its customer in India is in the nature of 'royalty' within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act and accordingly taxable in India under the IT Act. Page 2 IT(IT)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 3. The lower authorities erred in holding ... holding that the Appellant failed to produce evidences before them. 6. The lower authorities erred in holding that the retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act would apply in interpreting the Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Belgium. 7. Without

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

nature of royalty as per section 9(i)(vi) of the Act. In this context, he referred to Explanation-3 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as CBDT Circular no.621 dated 9th December 2019. Having held so, the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee ... respect of" copyright, the transfer of all or any rights in relation to copyright is a sine qua non under Explanation2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. in short, there must be transfer by way of licence or otherwise, of all or any of the rights mentioned

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ITA No. 17/Mum./2011 ITA no.1650/Mum./2016 ITA no.1054/Mum./2016 software cannot be considered as payment of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Further, the assessee submitted that the payment for purchase of software is also not covered under the restrictive definition ... assessment order dated 16.02.2015, held that the payment made for import of software is in the nature of royalty within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also referred to Explanation–3 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as CBDT

Edunxt Global Sdn Bhd, Malaysia vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2496/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2496/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Edunxt Global Sdn Bhd, The Deputy Unit A(Ii) Level 5. Commissioner Of Income Menara Shell, Tax, 211 Jalan Tun Circle 1(1), Sambathan, International Taxation, Kuala Lumpur, Vs. Bangalore. My – 50470, Malaysia. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca : Shri K.V. Aravind, Advocate & Revenue By Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 23-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By Non Resident Assessee Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit(It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon'Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Had In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 9(1)(vi)

have erred in holding that the income earned by the appellant is in nature of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. The ld. AO has failed to appreciate that the payment made by a resident company to the appellant cannot be treated ... allow the Indian Company to enjoy any patent, trademark or copyright. Therefore, receipt from such services cannot be considered as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 6. The Id. AO has erred in not appreciating that as the payer was not under an obligation to deduct

ACIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ld., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1177/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit (It)-4(3)(1), M/S Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1613, 16Th Floor, Air Vs. Zion Bizworld, Subhash Road-A, Near India Building, Nariman Point, Garware Office, Ville Parle (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400057 Pan No. Aaacm 9164 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra , DR
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(1) vi ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1) (vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Taj Tv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 6588/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR
Section 250Section 90(2)Section 92E

vide order dated 22.11.2016, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee in view of Explanation–4, 5 and 6, inserted in section 9(1)(vi) with retrospective Taj TV Limited ITA No. 6588/Mum./2019 ITA No. 6741/Mum./2019 effect from 01.06.1976. The Assessing Officer held that the payment ... Explanation–6 to the aforesaid section. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the payments made by the assessee are taxable as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the payment of uplinking and transponder fees is also taxable in India as Royalty