“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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Maharashtra

ITA 188/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 244ASection 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

Representative submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in allowing the Assessee's Appeals by completely overlooking the amended provision of Section 9(1)(i), 9(1)(vii), 44AB, 44DA of the Act which are applicable to the years under consideration. Thus, sought for allowing the appeal ... whether the ‘provision of software and AMC, support services, training of software etc' qualify as fee for technical services within the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or the services were such which are covered within the provisions of section 44BB of the Act. This would depend

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc, Maharastra

ITA 187/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 244ASection 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Off Shore Services Inc, Dehradun

ITA 175/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Section 244ASection 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

Orbis Real Estate Fund I, Hyderabad (Auth. Rep.) vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2 - 2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 785/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sourabh K, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar Naik

Section 143(3)Section 154

land located in India. 6.1 The Ld. DR relied on the retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2012 introducing Explanation 5 to Section 9(1)(i), which provides that capital gains arising from the transfer of a foreign company’s ITA No.785/Hyd/2024 11 shares are deemed to accrue in India ... assessee was derived from the land held in India. In our view, this falls squarely within the ambit of Explanation 5 to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, which deems income to accrue or arise in India where the share derives its value substantially from assets located in India

Rotomag Motors & Controls (P) Ltd., Anand vs. The Dy.CIT, Anand Circle, Anand

Appeal is allowed

ITA 796/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate, &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40

source. According to the AO, such payments represented income deemed to accrue or arise in India within the meaning of section 9(1)(i) of the Act, and therefore the assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source u/s.195. Since no TDS was deducted, the AO invoked section ... outside India. It was further submitted that the commission was purely for introducing prospective foreign clients and was not taxable in India under section 9(1)(i) of the Act or under the India-Germany DTAA. It was further argued that both the AO and CIT(A) ignored the binding

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, C/O Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income - Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1879/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

absence of any amendments to the DTAA, the payments cannot be held to be royalty even after the retrospective amendments to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings vide notice dated 12/01/2024, the assessee was asked to showcause as to why addition

Gemological Institute of America, Inc., United States vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Ta (International Taxation) - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assesse are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 1293/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT D/R a/w Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

down. 7 : 3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to tax the "royalty" income in accordance with the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. 8:0 Re; Taxation of royalty income

Gemological Institute of America, Inc., United States vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(2) - Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assesse are allowed partly for statistical

ITA 1292/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT D/R a/w Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148

Munich Re Automation Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax, 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3766/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.3766/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2021-22) Munich Re Automation Solutions Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Mountain View, Central Park, Leopardstown Office Park, Dublin, Ireland ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaicm-2594-E बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle International Tax-2(2)(1), New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Ms. Reema Grewal & Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr & Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.10.2023 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Ay 2021-22. 2. Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That He Is Not Pressing Ground No. 2 Of Appeal Challenging Validity Of Assessment Order On The Ground Of Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Ms. Reema Grewal, and Ms. Snigdha Gautam, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) held the receipts of the assessee from Indian customer as ‘royalty’ within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and as well as under Article 12(3)(a) of India-Ireland DTAA. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ... from a foreign non-resident supplier or manufacture. The Hon’ble Apex Court after detailed analysis of the definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and as per DTAA, referring to OECD commentary and after examining catena of decisions concluded as under:- “169. Our answer

Anuvu Uk Operations Ltd (Earlier Knows As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), London vs. ACIT, Circle-Int.Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 806/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Explanation 6 thereof. The definition of royalty under the provisions of the Act is very broad and inclusive. Explanation 6 to section 9(1) (vi) inserted by Finance Act, 2012 has further enlarged the scope of definition of royalty and has done away with the concept of secret process. Whereas ... Article 13 defines royalty narrowly Amendment to the definition of royalty as defined under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 does not impact the definition of royalty as defined in Article 13 of India-UK DTAA. Therefore, in terms of provisions of section

Anuvu Uk Operations Limited (Earlier Known As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Int Tax Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3338/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Anuvu Uk Operations Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), London vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Anuvu Uk Operations Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Global Eagle Entertainment Limited), London vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1878/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1879 और 1878/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19 और 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

M/S.Apollo Tyres Ltd, Cochin vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incometax, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vii)of Income Tax Act and liable for TDS. 5.2 The Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the assessee company has made payment of Rs 1

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kanpur vs. M.K.U Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 509/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

strength. From the same, he concluded that testing charges were in the nature of fee for technical services which were covered under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and TDS should have been deducted under section 195 of the Act for such payment. Since the assessee had not deducted ... records and other parties. The ld. AO, however, held that the payment was in the nature of, ‘fee for technical services’ covered under section 9 (1)(vii) of the Act and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Havells India Limited

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Ambattur Clothing Private Limited, Tiruvallur

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1663/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1663/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ambattur Clothing Private Limited, Income Tax, 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ambattur Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai. Ambattur, Thiruvallur 600 058. [Pan:Aaaca4127D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vinay Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 67 Days. The Appellant-Revenue Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Revenue Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Jain, CA

Section 14A

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

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2022-

ITA 558/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 558/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 & S.A. No.: 50/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.558/Chny/2025] धनिाजरण वर्ज/Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krisnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

from annual maintenance charges is in the nature of FIS under Article 12(4)(a) of India - USA DTAA as well as under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. However, while deciding the issue of taxability of receipts from granting of licence, we have held that they

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

ITA 2396/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 9(1)(vii)

case of Appellant's own matters for AY 2008-09 was incorrectly relied upon by learned AO since Explanation 1 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act was introduced by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect. The learned PCIT ignored the fact that the appellant has relied

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 7113/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)

where these projects are executed. The payments made by the appellant to these non-resident parties are clearly covered by the exception in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and accordingly, no income can be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India on account of these payments

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 5502/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)