“Section 9(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)1,741 judgments

HOME CREDIT INTERNATIONAL A.S.,CZECH REPUBLIC vs. ASSISTANTDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3846/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 282

whether the Assessing Officer, while passing the final assessment order, was justified in holding the receipts in dispute as equipment royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12 of India Czech DTAA. Materials on record 6 | P a g e 3846_DEL_2023_Home Credit

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

THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44C

interest income\nhad accrued and arisen from India and therefore taxable in India as per the provision\nof section 9(1)(v) r.w. Article 11 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement\n(\"DTAA\") between India and Japan. The said interest has been received by the\nHO/Foreign Branches which

GE ENGINE SERVICES LLC,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3700/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)

year in AY 2019-20\nthe AO had taxed similar receipts of Rs.976,68,90,940/- @ 10% as Fees for\nTechnical services under Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act as well as per Article 12 (4) (b)\nof India-USA DTAA.\n4.3 Before proceeding further the assessee vide ... assessee\nsubmitted before the AO that the said amount of Rs.471,64,50,980/- was not taxable\neither under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act nor under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA\nDTAA. The reasons for its non-taxability have been summarized

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

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

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

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

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

MRIGESH GAURAV,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD 42(2)(4),, MUMBAI

ITA 7988/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5(2)Section 6

services rendered outside India is not\nchargeable to tax in India having regard to the provisions of\nsection 5(2) read with section 9(1)(ii) of the Act and Article 16\nof the India–USA DTAA. In support of this contention, reliance\nhas been placed on the decision

OWENS CORNING (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT (INT TAX) CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5161/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2023-24 Owens Corning (Singapore) Deputy Commissioner Of Pte Ltd., Income Tax (International Tax), C/O. Owens Corning (India) Vs. Circle-3(2)(2), Pvt. Limited, 6Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Bandra Kurla Complex, Powai, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400076. Pan : Aabco5666L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Bhalla For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 10-07-2025, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, ("Ld.Drp"), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

during the year under consideration by treating the same as 'fees for technical services' in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and Singapore ("India-Singapore Tax Treaty"). 1.2 The Appellant ... issue under consideration pertains to the taxability of the fabrication charges received by the assessee company as Fees for Technical Services ("FTS") under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as Article 12 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA"). 3. Briefly, the facts

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\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

SUPERHOUSE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, DELHI, 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE GMBH, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 250/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115ASection 250Section 9(1)(vi)

revenue received on account of IP Charges received from Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. amounting to Rs.77,66,43,479/- as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act taxable u/s 115A of the Act, as opposed to the claim of the appellant that such receipts are in nature ... erred in law in characterizing the revenue received on account of sale of software amounting to Rs.70,934,733 to be royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as opposed to the claim of the appellant that such receipts are business profits and not royalty under Article

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

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

classifying the payments made to M/s. VISA Worldwide Ptd. Ltd., Singapore ('VISA')/M/s. MasterCard Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd ('Mastercard") as 'Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and Singapore. 3:2 The AO erred in in disallowing the payments

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7487/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

nature of 'receipt from self.’ Ld. Assessing Officer, in the draft assessment order dated 26.12.2017, referred to the provisions of section 9(1)(v)(c) of the Act and held that the said section provides for a source rule for taxation and that it does not make any distinction about ... income in the hands of the Head Office/overseas branches of assessee and thus, not chargeable to tax. Further, while Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(v) of the Act states that interest paid by a PE in India to the head office or any other PE shall be chargeable

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1751/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalshell International Petroleum Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd Floor, Taxation) 4(2)(1), Lodhaexcelus, Apollo Mills Mumbai Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal and Shreyas Sardesai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards cost allocation for software license charges as 'Royalty under provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA Erred in not appreciating that the payments received were in nature ... provided mainly for standardization and to support the day-to-day business operations. On this assessee contended that whereas under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, mere rendering of technical services is enough for the services to be taxable as FTS, however, Article

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

YOUCLOUD DMCC,DUBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes\nonly

ITA 1220/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(d)Section 201(1)

received by the assessee from Comviva, India is FTS shall be\nchargeable to Income-tax under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the 1961\n5\nAct, keeping in view that there is no provision wrt FTS in India-UAE DTAA,\nvide draft assessment order dated 27.03.2023 passed ... nwish to respectfully submit that no income is accrued/arisen in India.\nWe also wish to submit that section Sub clause b of section 9(1)(vii) of the\nAct provides that a fees shall not be considered as fees for technical\nservice, where the fees is payable by a resident

Showing 1–20 of 1,741 · Page 1 of 88

...