← 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)

ACIT, Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 117/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

affairs outside India. Thus, the AO classified the activity rendered by the overseas agents as technical services and invoked the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No 1741 and 1525/Mds/2014 dated 19.05.2016 for Assessment Year

Ethiopian Airlines Group, Ethiopia vs. ACIT, Int. Taxation Circle-1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 2201/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 115ASection 133ASection 147Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

relevant DTAA. AO has held that the income received by EA is chargeable to tax as fees for technical services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) read with section 115A of the Income-tax Act. On merit, assessee's grounds are basically two-fold. First, the contract agreement dated ... business income for EA which accrues or arises only in Ethiopia in view of Article 7 of the India Ethiopia DTAA read with section 9(1)(1) of the income-tax Act 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 2200 & 2201/Del/2024 5.2 From the submissions made by the assessee from

Ethiopian Airlines Group, Ehiopia vs. ACIT Int. Taxation Circle-1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 2200/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 115ASection 133ASection 147Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

relevant DTAA. AO has held that the income received by EA is chargeable to tax as fees for technical services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) read with section 115A of the Income-tax Act. On merit, assessee's grounds are basically two-fold. First, the contract agreement dated ... business income for EA which accrues or arises only in Ethiopia in view of Article 7 of the India Ethiopia DTAA read with section 9(1)(1) of the income-tax Act 5.2 From the submissions made by the assessee from time to time and also from the hearing before

Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

income by the assessee 8.1 Taxation of cross-border business income is governed by the source rules under section 5(2) read with section 9(1)(i) of the Income- tax Act and Article 7 of the relevant DTAA. Under Article 7 of the Indian DTAA, the business income ... such activities in India. 8.2 To tax the business profits of the non-resident, dual test of existence of "business connection" under section 9(1)(i) of the Act and the Permanent Establishment (PE) threshold under Article 7 of the relevant DTAA is required. 8.3. Taxable presence: 8.3.1 Business connection

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

appreciating the fact that the software AMC payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the learned ... appreciating the fact that the software license payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

appreciating the fact that the software AMC payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the learned ... appreciating the fact that the software license payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1263/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

appreciating the fact that the software AMC payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the learned ... appreciating the fact that the software license payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

appreciating the fact that the software AMC payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance made by the learned ... appreciating the fact that the software license payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act. 14. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1206/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

appreciating the fact that the software AMC payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the learned ... appreciating the fact that the software license payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1205/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

appreciating the fact that the software AMC payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the learned ... appreciating the fact that the software license payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1194/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

appreciating the fact that the software AMC payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vii) of section 9(1) of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the learned ... appreciating the fact that the software license payments are covered under the exclusion provided in sub-clause (b) to clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance made up the learned AO for the aforesaid

DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-I, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Dehradun

ITA 6714/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by completely overlooking the amended provisions of section 9(1)(i), 9(1)(vii), 44AB, 44DA of the Act which were applicable to the AY under consideration for the services provided by the assessee ... construction, assembly, mining or like project and had only provided ancillary services, and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ONGC case supra

DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-I, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Dehradun

ITA 6171/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by completely overlooking the amended provisions of section 9(1)(i), 9(1)(vii), 44AB, 44DA of the Act which were applicable to the AY under consideration for the services provided by the assessee ... construction, assembly, mining or like project and had only provided ancillary services, and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ONGC case supra

Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun

ITA 6026/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by completely overlooking the amended provisions of section 9(1)(i), 9(1)(vii), 44AB, 44DA of the Act which were applicable to the AY under consideration for the services provided by the assessee ... construction, assembly, mining or like project and had only provided ancillary services, and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ONGC case supra

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2901/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2900 & 2901/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

earlier assessment years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1 ... employment, shall be regarded as income earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

this regard submitted that the issue needs to be examined in the light of the amendment made to section 9(1)(v) by way of explanation. 35. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the issue of interest paid by Indian Branch ... arise in India as per section 5(2) of the Act. The AO also held that the commission income is taxable under section 9(1)(i) of the Act since the Hong Kong Branch is having a business connection in India, as the business income and since the assessee

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

this regard submitted that the issue needs to be examined in the light of the amendment made to section 9(1)(v) by way of explanation. 35. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the issue of interest paid by Indian Branch ... arise in India as per section 5(2) of the Act. The AO also held that the commission income is taxable under section 9(1)(i) of the Act since the Hong Kong Branch is having a business connection in India, as the business income and since the assessee

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

this regard submitted that the issue needs to be examined in the light of the amendment made to section 9(1)(v) by way of explanation. 35. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the issue of interest paid by Indian Branch ... arise in India as per section 5(2) of the Act. The AO also held that the commission income is taxable under section 9(1)(i) of the Act since the Hong Kong Branch is having a business connection in India, as the business income and since the assessee