← 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)

Manisha Kiran Temkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT -21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 674/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 195Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 90(2)

these countries. Utilization of services of such parties are outside India. The assessee also explained this scope of section 40(a)(i) and section 9(1)(vi) & (vii). The assessee finally by referring such provision submitted that she has not violated or defaulted with the provision of Chapter XVII ... India. The assessing officer was of the view that expenditure incurred in foreign currency related to merchanting business falls under the ambit of section 9(1) and accordingly, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the remittances to the parties in the nature of fees and technical services

Manish Kiran Temkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 673/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 195Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 90(2)

these countries. Utilization of services of such parties are outside India. The assessee also explained this scope of section 40(a)(i) and section 9(1)(vi) & (vii). The assessee finally by referring such provision submitted that she has not violated or defaulted with the provision of Chapter XVII ... India. The assessing officer was of the view that expenditure incurred in foreign currency related to merchanting business falls under the ambit of section 9(1) and accordingly, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the remittances to the parties in the nature of fees and technical services

Zodiac Ventures Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 11 (3) (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4135/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari, AR
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 199Section 250

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

Tfdac Ireland II Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(1)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1198/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

directions, the AO passed the final assessment order on 22 January 2025, holding: (i) that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo

Dae(Sy22) Leasing (Ireland)41, Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1157/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

directions, the AO passed the final assessment order on 22 January 2025, holding: (i) that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo

Dae (Sabs) Leasing Ireland 43 Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax.Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1156/MUM/2025[2022-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-22
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

directions, the AO passed the final assessment order on 22 January 2025, holding: (i) that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo

Dae (Sabs) 10296 Ireland Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation), Cirlce 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1155/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

directions, the AO passed the final assessment order on 22 January 2025, holding: (i) that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo

Sky High Xliii Leasing Company Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4 (2) (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1122/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

directions, the AO passed the final assessment order on 22 January 2025, holding: (i) that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo

Ortus Aircraft Lease 5( Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1108/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

directions, the AO passed the final assessment order on 22 January 2025, holding: (i) that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo

Sunflower Aircraft Leasing Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2)(2) International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1107/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

payments did not constitute "royalty” as defined in Article 12(3)(a) of the DTAA, which, unlike the domestic law definition in section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, contains a narrower scope for payments relating to the use of industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment. (ii) Article ... leases was other than obtaining treaty benefits. Treating the DTAA provisions as inapplicable, he characterised the lease rentals as "royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and brought the amounts to tax at the rate applicable to foreign companies. 7. Before the ld.DRP, the assessee lodged detailed objections

Ortus Aircraft Lease 6(Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1106/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

directions, the AO passed the final assessment order on 22 January 2025, holding: (i) that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3756/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Yr.: 2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 44CSection 90

Taxes Circular No. 19/2015 and which while explaining the provisions of Finance Act, 2015 had this to state insofar as the Explanation to Section 9(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned. We deem it apposite to extract the following paragraphs from that Circular: - "9.4 The CBDT ... will, accordingly, apply to the assessment year 2016-17 and subsequent assessment years. 15. It becomes pertinent to note that the Explanation to Section 9(1)(v) of the Act is principally concerned with entities engaged in the business of banking and a PE in India once remitting payments

M/S. the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ufj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 3708/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 44CSection 90

1 ITA Nos.3708 & 3756/Del/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D' NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2678/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 Continental Foundation Joint Assistant Commissioner Of Venture, Income Tax, Circle-38(1), Continental House-28, Vs. Room No.2202, E-2, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaaac0084D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Advocate Sh. Shivam Malik, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred & Was Not Justified In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs 2.31,80,000/- On Account Of Reimbursement Of Legal & Professional Fee Paid To Members Of The Appellant, By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40Ba) Of The Act, Conveniently Ignoring Earlier Orders U/S 195(2) To The Effect That Impugned Amounts Were Not Covered U/S 40(Ba).

Section 195(2)Section 244ASection 40Section 40b

relation to which payments of legal & professional charges made by the assessee JV were in the nature of technical services falling under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the Indo Canadian Treaty. Hence, the same could not be treated as payment in the nature

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Western Geco International Limited, Haryana

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 141/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 141/Del/2024 (A.Y 2021-22)

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

services for 4C-3D OBN data processing & interpretation of data D1 to be in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 11/03/2024, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before ... nature of fees for technical services as the same is covered by the exclusion provided in Explanation (2) to Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act being consideration received for “mining or like projects” and the same, therefore, is not taxable under Section 44DA of the Act. The said services

Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, bot the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1254/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.1243/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Ernst & Young U.S. Llp Acit, Circle, C/O Authorized Representative, International Tax- Ernst & Young Llp, Vs. 1(2)(2), New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-2, Plot No.2B, Sector-126, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201304. Pan-Aadfe0355M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The Present Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 18Th December, 2024 & 12Th December, 2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19 & Assessment Year 2022-23 Respectively.

Section 139(4)

services. Further, even as per Section 9 of the Act, the payment cannot be treated as fees for technical service. Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) gives the meaning of the expression "fees for technical services" as per which, inter alia, any consideration which would be income

Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, bot the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1243/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.1243/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Ernst & Young U.S. Llp Acit, Circle, C/O Authorized Representative, International Tax- Ernst & Young Llp, Vs. 1(2)(2), New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-2, Plot No.2B, Sector-126, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201304. Pan-Aadfe0355M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The Present Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 18Th December, 2024 & 12Th December, 2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19 & Assessment Year 2022-23 Respectively.

Section 139(4)

services. Further, even as per Section 9 of the Act, the payment cannot be treated as fees for technical service. Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) gives the meaning of the expression "fees for technical services" as per which, inter alia, any consideration which would be income

Jawaharlal Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

pertinent. However, being a non-resident, does not absolve the assessee from paying taxes on the amounts in the foreign account as per Section 9(1) of the Act, especially in view of assessee‟s Indian connection. Neither at the reassessment stage nor at the appellate stage, has the assessee ... surmises and conjectures and as such interest accrued is taxable in India. It is submitted that the AO has misread the provisions of Section 9(1) of the Act. The assessee was not carrying on any business, there was no income from any property in India. There was no income

Jawaharlal Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 537/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

pertinent. However, being a non-resident, does not absolve the assessee from paying taxes on the amounts in the foreign account as per Section 9(1) of the Act, especially in view of assessee's Indian connection. Neither at the reassessment stage nor at the appellate stage, has the assessee

Sham Gulabrai Tulsyani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 483/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

pertinent. However, being a non-resident, does not absolve the assessee from paying taxes on the amounts in the foreign account as per Section 9(1) of the Act, especially in view of assessee's Indian connection. Neither at the reassessment stage nor at the appellate stage, has the assessee