← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation) Circle-2(2) Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. U L India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 29/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 250

used by the assessee company in its business activities. Therefore, the management fees payments are taxable in India both under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and Article 12(4) of the India USA DTAA. 8.5 Further for the successive assessment years, the assessee itself

M/S. Ul India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1136/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 250

used by the assessee company in its business activities. Therefore, the management fees payments are taxable in India both under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and Article 12(4) of the India USA DTAA. 8.5 Further for the successive assessment years, the assessee itself

Shell International Petroeum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5509/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

India and UK; and not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of the term in Explanation 2 to Clause (vi) of Section 9(1) of the Act and under Article 13 of DTAC, while we rule on Que. No. (iii) & (iv). Based on answer ... towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself. Therefore the ld AR argued that the provisions of section 9(1)(v) is not applicable as has been held by the AO. Our attention in this regard was drawn to the decision

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3053/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

India and UK; and not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of the term in Explanation 2 to Clause (vi) of Section 9(1) of the Act and under Article 13 of DTAC, while we rule on Que. No. (iii) & (iv). Based on answer ... towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself. Therefore the ld AR argued that the provisions of section 9(1)(v) is not applicable as has been held by the AO. Our attention in this regard was drawn to the decision

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3049/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

India and UK; and not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of the term in Explanation 2 to Clause (vi) of Section 9(1) of the Act and under Article 13 of DTAC, while we rule on Que. No. (iii) & (iv). Based on answer ... towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself. Therefore the ld AR argued that the provisions of section 9(1)(v) is not applicable as has been held by the AO. Our attention in this regard was drawn to the decision

Opg Power Generation Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 1090/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1088/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V.Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 172Section 195Section 40Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

assessee do not have any value. The Ld. First Appellate Authority held that in such situations provisions of section 9(1)(i) gets attracted. It was also observed that assessee ought to have obtained nil tax deduction Page - 4 - of 14 ITA Nos. 1088, 1089 & 1090/Chny/2024 certificate

Opg Power Generation Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 1089/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1088/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V.Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 172Section 195Section 40Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

assessee do not have any value. The Ld. First Appellate Authority held that in such situations provisions of section 9(1)(i) gets attracted. It was also observed that assessee ought to have obtained nil tax deduction Page - 4 - of 14 ITA Nos. 1088, 1089 & 1090/Chny/2024 certificate

Opg Power Generation Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 1088/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1088/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V.Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 172Section 195Section 40Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

assessee do not have any value. The Ld. First Appellate Authority held that in such situations provisions of section 9(1)(i) gets attracted. It was also observed that assessee ought to have obtained nil tax deduction Page - 4 - of 14 ITA Nos. 1088, 1089 & 1090/Chny/2024 certificate

Visteon Corporation, Michigan vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1347/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1347/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Visteon Corporation Dcit बनाम/ Grace Lake Corporation Centre, International Taxation Van Buren Township Circle-2(2), Vs. Michigan – 48111 Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aadcv-5660-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Jyotsna Sivakumar (Advocate) & Shri Ajay Vohra (Senior Advocate) – Ld. Ars (Through Virtual Mode ) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Jyotsna Sivakumar (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vii)

services rendered under Other heads is in the nature of Technical services and fall under the category of Fees for Technical Services under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 and as Fees for Included Services as per Article 12(4) of the India-US DTAA ... hence, not taxable in India. We also hold that the amount received cannot be treated as royalty even under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii), because the service rendered cannot constitute technical services so as to cover u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Act. Hence, we delete the addition

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 640/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

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 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, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Madurai

Appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2884/CHNY/2024[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2883 & 2884/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Income Tax, 47, Psk Nagar, Corporate Circle, Rajapalayam 626 108. Madurai [Pan Aaacr 5284J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Muralidhar & Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.As. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S. Muralidhar and Shri JFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Explanation expressly 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Rajapalayam

Appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2883/CHNY/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2883 & 2884/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Income Tax, 47, Psk Nagar, Corporate Circle, Rajapalayam 626 108. Madurai [Pan Aaacr 5284J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Muralidhar & Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.As. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S. Muralidhar and Shri JFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Explanation expressly 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Ms Va Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

ITA 2256/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, 'Wabag House” No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Chennai. [Pan: Aabcv 0225G] आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2256, 2257 & 2258/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Income Tax, 'Wabag House” Central Circle 3(2) No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Chennai. S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 2

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

nature of `Fee for technical service', still the amount is not taxable in India in view of exclusion clause provided under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Further he contended that the services for AY 2017-18 was rendered by an individual and it is in the nature ... bench held that income of such non-residents could not be deemed to accrue or arise in India, and, therefore, section 9(1)(vii) (b) would not apply. The relevant portion of the decision is as under: DCIT V. Ajapa Integrated Project Management Consultants P Ltd [2011] 16 taxmann.com