← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)”

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

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

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)

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

ITA 722/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, САFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Ld.CIT(A) that the two entities have PE in India as per the DTAA. The Tribunal also considered the arguments that section 9(1)(i) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case when there is a specific provision in section 9(1)(vii) and therefore ... entitles would be liable to TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption as per the DTAA. Finally

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 721/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Ld.CIT(A) that the two entities have PE in India as per the DTAA. The Tribunal also considered the arguments that section 9(1)(i) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case when there is a specific provision in section 9(1)(vii) and therefore ... entitles would be liable to TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption as per the DTAA. Finally

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

ITA 720/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Ld.CIT(A) that the two entities have PE in India as per the DTAA. The Tribunal also considered the arguments that section 9(1)(i) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case when there is a specific provision in section 9(1)(vii) and therefore ... entitles would be liable to TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption as per the DTAA. Finally

Prakash Raman, Vadodara vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 1115/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1115/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Prakash Raman, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pent House No.602, 6Th Floor, (International Taxation), Pincode@55, Vasant Vihar Road, Ward-2(1), Tp-1, Opp. To Darshanam Chennai. Splendora, Bhayli, Vadodara, Gujarat-391 410. [Pan:Aappp0380F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, C.A (Virtual). प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mrs. R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr.Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Mrs. R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 234BSection 5Section 90

Tribunal in the case of Bholanath Pal in ITA No. 10 of 2011 wherein the ITAT held that: 12.8 In terms of section 9(1)(ii) income chargeable under the head "salaries" under section 15 shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India if it is earned in India ... basis that it is received or deemed to be received by him in India.” The other relevant provision in the act involved is Section 9(1) (ii) of the act which deals with income deemed to accrue or arise in India and it reads as follows: “9. (1) The following

Isat Africa Limited Fzc, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the final assessment order passed by AO is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms

ITA 832/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanisat Africa Limited Fzc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Office No. 5 Pre-Fab, C Phase Ii, Of Income Tax Fujairah Free Zone Fujairah, Dubai, International Tax Circle- United Arab Emirates, Dubai - 2(2)(2) 999999 Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan – Aagci8661Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

found that the transactions for which remittances were made are in the nature of Royalty within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and as such withholding tax required to be deducted u/s 195 of the Act on these transactions. An order u/s 201/201 ... directions of Ld. DRP and the assessment order passed by AO and submitted that the explanation no. 5 and 6 of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act would be applicable as it was clarified by the explanation 6 that the expression „process‟ includes and shall be deemed to have

Forcepoint International Technology Limited, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 976/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta CIT- DR
Section 139(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

technical services and its income of Rs.93,14,40,396/- is taxable as FTS under Article 12 of India- Ireland DTAA and under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 1.1 Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law by contending that direct human involvement ... confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court 330 ITR 239 (SC), wherein it was held that the technical services described in Section 9(1)(vii) read with explanation 2 would have to mean services rendered by human and that at the time of delivery of service there

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5335/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5334/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5333/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bennett Williamson Engineers Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4056/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

India. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 9(1) of the I.T. Act as the revenue has been earned because of underlying assets of the assessee wholly and totally situated in India

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bennett Williamson Engineers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4055/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

India. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 9(1) of the I.T. Act as the revenue has been earned because of underlying assets of the assessee wholly and totally situated in India

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gainway Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4007/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Gainway Holdings Ltd. Vs Central Circle-19, Room C/O. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate No. 362, Ara Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Offices, Jhandewalan Extension, Advoate For The Respondent C- New Delhi 56, Lfg, Jangpura Extention, New Delhi-110014 Pan: Aafcg6056L Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

India. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 9(1) of the I.T. Act as the revenue has been earned because of underlying assets of the assessee wholly and totally situated in India

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gynia Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3916/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

India. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 9(1) of the I.T. Act as the revenue has been earned because of underlying assets of the assessee wholly and totally situated in India

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gynia Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3915/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

India. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 9(1) of the I.T. Act as the revenue has been earned because of underlying assets of the assessee wholly and totally situated in India

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gynia Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3914/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

India. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 9(1) of the I.T. Act as the revenue has been earned because of underlying assets of the assessee wholly and totally situated in India

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Focusoil Inc., New Delhi

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

ITA 3911/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs Focusoil Inc. Central Circle-19, Room C/O. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate No. 362, Ara Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Offices, Jhandewalan Extension, Advoate For The Respondent C- New Delhi 56, Lfg, Jangpura Extention, New Delhi-110014 Pan: Aaccf3908K Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

India. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 9(1) of the I.T. Act as the revenue has been earned because of underlying assets of the assessee wholly and totally situated in India

Factive Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation )-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4706/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal & Factive Limited Asst. Cit(It)-2(3)(1) C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Llp 609, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 252, Veer Savarkar Marg, C-41, C-43, G Block, Vs. Shivaji Park, Dadar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 028 Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccf 5745 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W Appellant By Shri Yogesh Malpani & Ms. Kinjal Patel Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. Drp' For Short) & Pertains To The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since The Substantive Issue On Merits, Arising In The Appeals Are More Or Less Common In Both The Appeals, We Propose To Take Up Ita No. 4706/Mum/2023, Pertaining To A.Y. 2021-22, As The Lead Appeal. (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) Factive Limited Vs. Asst. Cit(It) 3. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Are Basically On Legal Issues, Challenging The Validity Of The Final Assessment Order. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Submitted That He Would Prefer To Address The Issues On Merits And, If Warranted, May Press The Legal Grounds.

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

case and in law, the Learned AO and the DRP erred in holding the sum of INR 8,17.59,532 as 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('the DTAA') entered into between India ... Factive Limited vs. Asst. CIT(IT) Accordingly, ld. DRP concluded that the receipts are in the nature of royalty in terms with section 9(1)(vi) read with Article 13(2) of India-UK DTAA. 13. Insofar as existence of DAPE in the form of DJCIPL, the ld. DRP agreed

Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific, Inc., Georgia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1997/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) Turner Broadcasting System Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Pacific, Inc. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, 1050, Techwood Drive, N. W. E-2, Block, Circle- Atlanta, Ga 30318, U.S.A 3(1)(1), International Pan: Aabct6254F Taxation, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Manuj Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Dronanegi, Adv& Sh. Devvrat Tiwari, Adv Revenue By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19 & 2022-23Challenging The Final Assessment Orders Dated 28/01/2025 & 27/01/2025 Respectively

Section 144C(13)Section 147

tried to justify the tax the distribution revenue in the nature of royalty by applying the retrospective amendment made in Explanation-6 of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Such an approach cannot be upheld because there is no similar amendment in the definition of royalty under the DTAA

Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific, Inc., Georgia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1997/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) Turner Broadcasting System Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Pacific, Inc. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, 1050, Techwood Drive, N. W. E-2, Block, Circle- Atlanta, Ga 30318, U.S.A 3(1)(1), International Pan: Aabct6254F Taxation, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Manuj Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Dronanegi, Adv& Sh. Devvrat Tiwari, Adv Revenue By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19 & 2022-23Challenging The Final Assessment Orders Dated 28/01/2025 & 27/01/2025 Respectively

Section 144C(13)Section 147

tried to justify the tax the distribution revenue in the nature of royalty by applying the retrospective amendment made in Explanation-6 of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Such an approach cannot be upheld because there is no similar amendment in the definition of royalty under the DTAA