← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 639/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 – assessee by net profit attributation in accordance with the Proviso to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act read with Rule 10 of IT Rules. The AO had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AA of the Act on the ground that

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 – assessee by net profit attributation in accordance with the Proviso to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act read with Rule 10 of IT Rules. The AO had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AA of the Act on the ground that

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 637/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 – assessee by net profit attributation in accordance with the Proviso to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act read with Rule 10 of IT Rules. The AO had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AA of the Act on the ground that

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 636/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 – assessee by net profit attributation in accordance with the Proviso to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act read with Rule 10 of IT Rules. The AO had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AA of the Act on the ground that

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 635/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

Rs.4,98,11,360/-. The AO had computed the income of the assessee by net profit attributation in accordance with the Proviso to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act read with Rule 10 of IT Rules. The AO had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AA

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Maharastra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 634/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 – assessee by net profit attributation in accordance with the Proviso to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act read with Rule 10 of IT Rules. The AO had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AA of the Act on the ground that

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Maharastra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 – assessee by net profit attributation in accordance with the Proviso to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act read with Rule 10 of IT Rules. The AO had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AA of the Act on the ground that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 16(1), Mumbai vs. Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6815/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 391Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

erred in holding that the assessee does not have a business connection in India under section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that business operation was being carried out in a continuing manner through Multi Screen Media P. Ltd? 3. Whether on the facts

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax 16(1), Mumbai vs. Culver Max Entertainmet Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6814/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 391Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

erred in holding that the assessee does not have a business connection in India under section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that business operation was being carried out in a continuing manner through Multi Screen Media P. Ltd? 3. Whether on the facts

DCIT, Central Circle 2, Rajkot vs. Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 353/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

commission can be said to have accrued in India in view of specific provision in clause (a) of the Explanation of section 9(1) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct TDS, therefore, Id. Counsel stated that ... commission can be said to have accrued in India in view of specific provision in clause (a) of the Explanation of section 9(1) of the Act. The assessee has further claimed that the liability to deduct tax under section 195 of the Act, is only when

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Rajkot vs. Aditya Birla Global Trading(India) Pvt.Ltd. (Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd.), Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 284/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

commission can be said to have accrued in India in view of specific provision in clause (a) of the Explanation of section 9(1) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct TDS, therefore, Id. Counsel stated that ... commission can be said to have accrued in India in view of specific provision in clause (a) of the Explanation of section 9(1) of the Act. The assessee has further claimed that the liability to deduct tax under section 195 of the Act, is only when

Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Private Limited, Gujarat vs. DCIT-ACIT Cent-2 RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 226/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

commission can be said to have accrued in India in view of specific provision in clause (a) of the Explanation of section 9(1) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct TDS, therefore, Id. Counsel stated that ... commission can be said to have accrued in India in view of specific provision in clause (a) of the Explanation of section 9(1) of the Act. The assessee has further claimed that the liability to deduct tax under section 195 of the Act, is only when

Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Private Limited, Gujarat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Gandhihdam, Gandhidham, Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 225/RJT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

commission can be said to have accrued in India in view of specific provision in clause (a) of the Explanation of section 9(1) of the Act. Since the Commission was not chargeable to tax in India, hence there was no requirement to deduct TDS, therefore, Id. Counsel stated that ... commission can be said to have accrued in India in view of specific provision in clause (a) of the Explanation of section 9(1) of the Act. The assessee has further claimed that the liability to deduct tax under section 195 of the Act, is only when

Kiri Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2358/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(i)

income, is governed by Article 23 as "Other Income" of India Singapore DTAA and hence, taxable under the Indian domestic tax laws under section 9(1)(i) of the Act. 6.1 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated ... account that the income is arising from an Indian Entity, viz., Adani Wilmar. It was argued that the provision of Section 9(1)(i) of the Act are not satisfied as payer is not the source of income. For this contention, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that :  The term

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1) [Formerly JCIT, Range-12, Kolkata ]

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1865/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) M/S La Opala Rg Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 8Th Floor, Premises No.803 & 804 Eco Centre, Em-4, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700091, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5569J Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan & Deepak Mundhra, Tanmoy Kar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 133(6)Section 37

During the appellate proceedings, the appellant contested that the AO has wrongly invoked the provisions of section 5(2) and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. It further contested that agent to whom commission was paid, is not having any business connection in India, or through or from ... asset situate in India. Since the Income of foreign agents is not taxable in India by virtue of Section 5(2) read with Section 9(1) of the Act, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195 of the Act. 6.16 The contention of appellant are considered

Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle2(1)(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2373/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 197Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

grossly erred in holding that the income of the appellant falls in the definition of Royalty under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under Article 12 of the DTAA. 5. That the Ld. AO and DRP has grossly erred in not appreciating substance over form ... extraction or production of mineral oil is chargeable to tax as “fees for technical services” under Section 44D read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act or will such payments be taxable on a presumptive basis under Section 44BB of the Act”? Thus

M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl Tax -1(1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited Dcit बनाम/ 46C, Velachery Main Road, Velacherry, International Taxation-1(1) Vs. Chennai-600 042. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(i)

permanent establishment in India, the service was not chargeable in India in the absence of its permanent establishment in India in view of section 9(1)(i) of the Act. 3.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that in Indo-USA DTAA as well as lndo

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1662/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1255/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1662/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1), 560, 562, 7H Century Plaza, Vs. Chennai. Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Has Common Issues. First We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-01-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

payments falls in the nature of "fees for included services" under Article 12 4(a) of India-USA DTAA and explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly whether on the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law. is it correct on the part of Ld. CIT/A ... activities and geographic rules of source of income recede to the background and are not of any relevance in considering the question under Section 9(1)(vi) read with Explanation 2. Thus, more so when it comes to the question of dealing with issues arising on account of more complex

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1255/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1255/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1662/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1), 560, 562, 7H Century Plaza, Vs. Chennai. Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Has Common Issues. First We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-01-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

payments falls in the nature of "fees for included services" under Article 12 4(a) of India-USA DTAA and explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly whether on the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law. is it correct on the part of Ld. CIT/A ... activities and geographic rules of source of income recede to the background and are not of any relevance in considering the question under Section 9(1)(vi) read with Explanation 2. Thus, more so when it comes to the question of dealing with issues arising on account of more complex