← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)279 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(i) 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)(i)

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.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

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).

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.
125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court
270
citing judgments

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

Judgments citing Section 9(1)(i)

Sercel Sa, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/DDN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)

days exceeds six months. 3.2 With the above observation, the Assessing Officer relied on Article 5 of the India–France DTAA and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act to conclude that the assessee is having a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Therefore, the profit is attributable ... India and the supply of machinery from outside India is already declared in its business receipts outside India. Therefore, the provisions of section 9(1) and Article 5 of the DTAA has no application in the present case. 8. On the other hand, the learned DR brought to our notice

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

purchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that such payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for purchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 which clarifies that the transfer of all or any rights

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

purchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that such payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for purchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 which clarifies that the transfer of all or any rights

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

purchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that such payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for purchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 which clarifies that the transfer of all or any rights

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

purchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that such payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for purchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 which clarifies that the transfer of all or any rights

DCIT(It)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Madhavachari Rangachari, Mumbai

ITA 3814/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 254Section 9(1)(vii)

undertaken in India by GFH and KBHC with Valuable Group are deemed to accrue or arise in India on account of provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. (d) Rejecting the contention of the assessee that it has not been established that the consultancy fees were accrued/received ... business for his wholly owned business concern. Thus, the AO held that the assessee has business income in India, which is taxable under section 9(1) of the Act. (k) In addition to the above findings, on a without prejudice basis, the AO held that the assessee's case

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

that the commission paid to various commission agents and foreign wholly owned subsidiaries had accrued / arisen in India as per the provisions of section 9(1) of the Act as the same was in connection with services rendered to the assessee company for procuring the orders of foreign customers. Accordingly ... that the services rendered by the assessee company were in the nature of fee for technical services (FTS) covered within the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. She held that as commission payments had been made for promotion of sales, which includes a variety of activities

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

deducted at source under section 195 of the Act. The AO held that in view of section 5(2)(b) read with section 9(1)(i) of the Act, the income in the hands of such agents was deemed to accrue or arise in India, particularly since the execution ... Revenue has not brought any material on record to establish that the agents had a business connection in India within the meaning of section 9(1)(i), or that services were rendered in India. The mere fact that the contracts were executed in India does not render the commission taxable

DCIT(It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Hsbc Bank Plc, United Kingdom

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4621/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit(It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai Hsbc Bank Plc Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautriya 8 Canada Square, London, Bhavan, G Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Foreign United Kingdom- Mumbai-400051. 999999, United Kingdom. (Pan : Aabch325P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 56, Mumbai Vide Order, Dated 02.04.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ld. Dcit (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai U/S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.02.2018, For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. "Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, For The Issue Of Expenses Of Rs. 3,77,38,994/-, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Relying On Para 16 Of Itat'S Order For A.Y. 2011-12 & Para 8 Of Itat'S Order For A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 As The Orders U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) For A.Y.S 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Never Examined The Issue Of 'Royalty' For The Reimbursement Received From Hsbc Securities & Capital Markets (India) Private Limited (Hsch).”

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

nothing but commercial services. Accordingly, the referral fees received from HSCI cannot be construed as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and, therefore, not subject to tax under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since neither Section 9(1 ... Sections 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act bring this income within the scope of the taxing provisions, the referral fees received by the assessee from HSCI cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India under Section 9 of the Act. Hence, such income

Booking.Com B.V., the Netherlands vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151

Government of India introduced the provisions of Significant Economic Presence ('SEP') from the subject AY. As per the provisions of Explanation 2A to section 9(1)(i) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the significant economic presence of a non- resident in India is deemed to constitute "business connection

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internatonal Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 887/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

subsidiary in India i.e. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act. 2. The learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, and based ... subsidiary in India ie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case

General Reinsurance Ag, Cologne, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4691/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

subsidiary in India i.e. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act. 2. The learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, and based ... subsidiary in India ie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 3- Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internatonal Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2448/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

subsidiary in India i.e. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act. 2. The learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, and based ... subsidiary in India ie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2447/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

subsidiary in India i.e. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act. 2. The learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, and based ... subsidiary in India ie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 3-Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case

The Uk Trade Desk Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Int.Tax)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, various sub grounds of ground no

ITA 2038/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) The Uk Trade Desk Ltd. Acit (International Taxation-4(3)(1), 10Th Floor, 1 Bartholomew Close, Vs Mumbai, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, London, United Kingdom. [Pan No. Aahct6320Q] Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254(1)Section 9(1)(i)

quashed as such. 3. Attribution of profits to the Indian Operations 3.1 The Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP ("Lower Authorities") erroneously applied Section 9(1)(i) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant did not undertake any part of its operations in India. 3.2 The Lower Authorities erred ... acting as dependent agent of assessee company. The assessing officer on the basis of such view by referring the provision of section 9(1)(i) of the Act held that all income accruing or arising whether directly or indirectly through or from business connection in India shall be deemed

General Reinsurance Corporation, United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 1817/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) General Reinsurance Corporation Acit (International Taxation), 1209, Orange Street Delaware, Vs Circle -2(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 610, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Wilmington, United States, 19801 Usa Bhavan, G Block, Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra (East), [Pan:Aahcg8162B] Mumbai-400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 9(1)

Indian Branch of General Reinsurance AG ('GRAG India Branch') constitutes a business connection in India for the Appellant as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. General Reinsurance Corporation 3. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, the learned AO has, on the facts ... recorded that assessee India branch does not enter into contract with its customer on behalf of its AE. The assessing officer by referring section 9(1)(i) of the Act held that assessee is earning from India on regular basis and have business connection in India. There is no clause

Kloeckner Desma Machinery Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. CIT, Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(i)

withhold any taxes while making commission payments to non- resident foreign agents. 2.2 The Ld. CITIA) has failed to appreciate that as per Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the established judicial principles, commission payments to non-resident agents for services rendered entirely outside India ... deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the Explanation 1 to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, which states that in the case of a business of which all operations are not carried out in India, only

Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1403/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

being exempt, on the following reasons: “ That such transaction is outside the definition/parameters of the definition of “royalty” as per Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act That the Assessee being a foreign company is not liable to pay tax on the income from the transactions done ... film rights from Usha Kiron Television, India. In the notes to the computation of income, the assessee has submitted that as per Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, the term royalty excludes sale, exhibition or distribution of cinematographic films and hence the income is not liable

Sms Group Gmbh, Delhi vs. ACIT.Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 377/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

consideration received from supply of designs and drawings forming integral part of the sale/supply of equipments, received under various contracts, as taxable under section 9(1)(vii)of the Act, being in the nature of “fee for technical services” (FTS) under the above former and its receipt derived from sale ... consider the assessee‟s above corresponding detailed objections which stood rejected, inter alia, on the ground that its case was covered under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act since the income herein was “FTS”and was not entitled for any relief under the India – Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), International Txation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 993/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

consideration received from supply of designs and drawings forming integral part of the sale/supply of equipments, received under various contracts, as taxable under section 9(1)(vii)of the Act, being in the nature of “fee for technical services” (FTS) under the above former and its receipt derived from sale ... consider the assessee‟s above corresponding detailed objections which stood rejected, inter alia, on the ground that its case was covered under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act since the income herein was “FTS”and was not entitled for any relief under the India – Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement