“Section 9(1)(i)”

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

purchase of\nsoftware products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that\nsuch payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the\nprovisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for\npurchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the\nExplanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by\nFinance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976\nwhich 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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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 and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

purchase of\nsoftware products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that\nsuch payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the\nprovisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for\npurchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the\nExplanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by\nFinance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976\nwhich 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 and the\nCOS filed by the assessee stand dismissed

purchase of\nsoftware products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the fact that\nsuch payments come under definition of 'royalty' as per the\nprovisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ... deduct tax u/s 195 of the Act for payment for\npurchase of software products from Diebold Inc. ignoring the\nExplanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by\nFinance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976\nwhich clarifies that the transfer of all or any rights

DCIT(IT)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN MADHAVACHARI RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

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

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI, BKC vs. HSBC BANK PLC, UNITED KINGDOM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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).”

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

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

subsidiary in India i.e. Gen Re Support Services\nMumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as\nper the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act.\n2. The learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law,\nand based ... subsidiary in India\nie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a\nbusiness connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act.\n3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and\ncircumstances of the case

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,COLOGNE, GERMANY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

subsidiary in India i.e. Gen Re Support Services\nMumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as\nper the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act.\n2. The learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law,\nand based ... subsidiary in India\nie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a\nbusiness connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act.\n3- Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and\ncircumstances of the case

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

subsidiary in India i.e. Gen Re Support Services\nMumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as\nper the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act.\n2. The learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law,\nand based ... subsidiary in India\nie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a\nbusiness connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act.\n3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and\ncircumstances of the case

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

subsidiary in India i.e. Gen Re Support Services\nMumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as\nper the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act.\n2. The learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law,\nand based ... subsidiary in India\nie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a\nbusiness connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act.\n3-Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and\ncircumstances 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

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

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

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

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

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

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)

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