“ Section 9(1)(vi) ”

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.

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.

345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court

461

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT

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.

332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court

359

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV

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.

382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court

325

358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court

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

276

39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court

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.

269

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

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.

310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court

259

343 ITR 470 · 2012 · High Court

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

256

ITA 1086/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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)

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

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA 7924/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

arguments/contentions/submission of the Ld. Sr. Counsel. The word ‘use’ in relation to equipment occurring in clause (iva) of explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) is to be some positive act of utilization, application or employment of equipment for the desired purpose having certain degree of possession and control

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

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 130/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 7727/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 4240/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025

ACIT(It)1.2.2 Mumbai, Bkc Mumbai vs. Bcd Travel Services Bv, Netherlands

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, Shri Hardik Nirmal and Ms. Tejal Saraf, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

ITA 4219/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

services are not covered within the provisions of Article 12 of the India- Netherlands DTAA nor it is covered within the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, to treat it as royalty, to bring it into tax net. It is also an admitted position that the nature ... factual position when compared with the preceding years. 5.1. Further, we note that as per sub-clause (vi) to Explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, royalty means rendering of any services in connection with the activities referred to in sub-clauses

ACIT (It) 1.2.2 Mumbai, Bkc vs. Bcd Travel Services Bv, Netherlands

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, Shri Hardik Nirmal and Ms. Tejal Saraf, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

ITA 1625/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Celestial Vision Limited, Bvi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1625/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Celestial Vision V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited बिधम Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) Po Box No. 146, Road 604, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Town, Tortola, British Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Virgin Islands (East)400051. 111000. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc1160A Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR DR

Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

receipts from providing the right to use the commercial equipment to Afcons is covered under clause (iv a) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) r.w. sub clause (vi) of the same section and therefore, this amount is liable to be taxed ... claims of DTAAS. The assessee argues that the income has been incorrectly classified as royalties or FTS, resulting in higher taxation. As per Section 9(1)(vi) and (vii), royalties and FTS will cover the consideration for intellectual property, technical services, and services that has been made

Isat Africa Limited Fzc, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the final assessment order passed by AO is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms

ITA 832/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanisat Africa Limited Fzc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Office No. 5 Pre-Fab, C Phase Ii, Of Income Tax Fujairah Free Zone Fujairah, Dubai, International Tax Circle- United Arab Emirates, Dubai - 2(2)(2) 999999 Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan – Aagci8661Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

found that the transactions for which remittances were made are in the nature of Royalty within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and as such withholding tax required to be deducted u/s 195 of the Act on these transactions. An order u/s 201/201 ... directions of Ld. DRP and the assessment order passed by AO and submitted that the explanation no. 5 and 6 of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act would be applicable as it was clarified by the explanation 6 that the expression „process‟ includes and shall be deemed to have

Forcepoint International Technology Limited, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 976/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta CIT- DR

Section 139(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

Jurisdictional High Court we have to hold that the payment cannot be termed as covered by Explanation 2 read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. On this ground alone the order of the First Appellate Authority has to be upheld. The charge that the payment in question ... 9(1)(vii) excludes the possibility of the payment being royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Both these sections deal with different set of facts situation which cannot co- exist. 27. The Revenue reliance on the decision of Kotak Securities Limited 383 ITR 1 (SC) does

Factive Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation )-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4706/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal & Factive Limited Asst. Cit(It)-2(3)(1) C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Llp 609, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 252, Veer Savarkar Marg, C-41, C-43, G Block, Vs. Shivaji Park, Dadar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 028 Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccf 5745 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W Appellant By Shri Yogesh Malpani & Ms. Kinjal Patel Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. Drp' For Short) & Pertains To The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since The Substantive Issue On Merits, Arising In The Appeals Are More Or Less Common In Both The Appeals, We Propose To Take Up Ita No. 4706/Mum/2023, Pertaining To A.Y. 2021-22, As The Lead Appeal. (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) Factive Limited Vs. Asst. Cit(It) 3. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Are Basically On Legal Issues, Challenging The Validity Of The Final Assessment Order. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Submitted That He Would Prefer To Address The Issues On Merits And, If Warranted, May Press The Legal Grounds.

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)

ITA 1997/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

case and in law, the Learned AO and the DRP erred in holding the sum of INR 8,17.59,532 as 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('the DTAA') entered into between India ... Factive Limited vs. Asst. CIT(IT) Accordingly, ld. DRP concluded that the receipts are in the nature of royalty in terms with section 9(1)(vi) read with Article 13(2) of India-UK DTAA. 13. Insofar as existence of DAPE in the form of DJCIPL, the ld. DRP agreed

Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific, Inc., Georgia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1997/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) Turner Broadcasting System Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Pacific, Inc. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, 1050, Techwood Drive, N. W. E-2, Block, Circle- Atlanta, Ga 30318, U.S.A 3(1)(1), International Pan: Aabct6254F Taxation, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Manuj Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Dronanegi, Adv& Sh. Devvrat Tiwari, Adv Revenue By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19 & 2022-23Challenging The Final Assessment Orders Dated 28/01/2025 & 27/01/2025 Respectively

Section 144C(13)Section 147

tried to justify the tax the distribution revenue in the nature of royalty by applying the retrospective amendment made in Explanation-6 of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Such an approach cannot be upheld because there is no similar amendment in the definition of royalty under the DTAA

Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific, Inc., Georgia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Section 144C(13)Section 147

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Maharashtra

ITA 188/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 244ASection 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

ITA No. 187, 175& 188/DDN/2024 DCIT Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc, Maharastra

ITA 187/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 244ASection 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

ITA No. 187, 175& 188/DDN/2024 DCIT Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Off Shore Services Inc, Dehradun

ITA 175/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Section 244ASection 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

ITA No. 187, 175& 188/DDN/2024 DCIT Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, C/O Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income - Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1879/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

absence of any amendments to the DTAA, the payments cannot be held to be royalty even after the retrospective amendments to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings vide notice dated 12/01/2024, the assessee was asked to showcause as to why addition

Gemological Institute of America, Inc., United States vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Ta (International Taxation) - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assesse are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 1293/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT D/R a/w Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

down. 7 : 3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to tax the "royalty" income in accordance with the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. 8:0 Re; Taxation of royalty income

Gemological Institute of America, Inc., United States vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(2) - Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assesse are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 1292/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT D/R a/w Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148

Cian Agro Industries & Infrastructure Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT (It) Circle 1, Pune

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

ITA 676/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133(6)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Munich Re Automation Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax, 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3766/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.3766/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2021-22) Munich Re Automation Solutions Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Mountain View, Central Park, Leopardstown Office Park, Dublin, Ireland ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaicm-2594-E बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle International Tax-2(2)(1), New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Ms. Reema Grewal & Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr & Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.10.2023 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Ay 2021-22. 2. Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That He Is Not Pressing Ground No. 2 Of Appeal Challenging Validity Of Assessment Order On The Ground Of Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Ms. Reema Grewal, and Ms. Snigdha Gautam, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT-DR &