“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)

DCIT (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Uk

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4515/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 195(2)

concerning commercial or knowledge, experience or skill as contemplated in the definition of royalty as contained in clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) or under article 11(3)(a) of the India-UK tax treaty. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions

Rudra Buildwell Project P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Spearsearch Solutions, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-4 & 5, Street No. 3, Near Ward-77(3), Nathu Sweets, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pan: Abofs7069J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. P.D. Mittal, Ca Department By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; Meaning of Fee for Technical Services - Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of Income Tax Act In terms of the above explanation, Fees for Technical Services means any consideration (including any lumpsum consideration) for the rendering

Mridula Jha Jena, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward, 3(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4844/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra/Ms. SnigdhaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 270ASection 5(2)Section 9(1)(ii)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT erred in upholding AOs stand in denying salary exemption claimed under section 9(1)(ii) of the Act and concluding that the salary received by Appellant from her international assignment shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India ... under consideration. The assessee further submitted that the salary earned towards services rendered in Egypt are not taxable as per the provisions of section 9(1)(ii) and therefore the same has not been offered to tax. The assessee also filed additional evidence in support of Chapter VIA deductions claimed

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 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

Hakam Fluid Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

taxable in India as it has no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the AO was of the view that as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, consideration received by any non-resident taxpayer for rendering any technical, managerial or consultancy services shall quality as FTS and shall

Parvinder Kaur Sawhney, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi -12, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 626/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

amounting to Rs. 242,65,46,501/- is taxable income of the assessee as Fees for Technical services ('FTS') under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and under the provisions of India - Canada DTAA. 13. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the DRP who confirmed

Janet Christine Depenning, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1319/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 & 1323/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 Janet Christine Depenning, The Income Tax Officer, 120, Velachery Main Road, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Guindy,Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aebpd 2408L]

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A LMFor Respondent: Smt. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(1)(viii)

held that the remittances made by the assessee to the foreign attorneys is fee for technical services as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(viii) of the Act and hence, income deemed to be accrued in India and therefore, the assessee ought to have deducted ... avail the benefit but has not examined the DTAA and held the payments as fee for technical services as per explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of Income Tax Act. 6. The Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the orders of authorities below. 7. We have heard

DCIT Corporate Circle 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee & Revenue for AYs 2011-

ITA 3024/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishit (Tp) A No.3/Chny/2018 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S.Vestas Wind Technology- India Pvt. Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aaaca 9274 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dy. Commissioner- Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.3024/Chny/2019 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner- Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. V. M/S.Vestas Wind Technology- India Pvt. Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aaaca 9274 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Shri N.V.Balaji, Adv. : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 08.10.2024 : 31.12.2024 It (Tp) A No.3/Chny/2018 For Ay 2011-12 &

Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

erred in law and in facts by holding the payment made by the Appellant towards performance guarantee as "Fees for technical services" under Section 9(1)(vii) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) Consequently, the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in holding that the Appellant

DCIT(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2342/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Gold, (ii) legal services, (iii) financial advisory services and (iv) human resource assistance. There is no dispute here that under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, rendering of management services will be taxable as FTS. However, Edenred, by virtue of section

DCIT(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2341/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1775/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1774/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

DCIT (It) 3.1.2, Income Tax Office, Kautiliya Bhawan vs. Linklaters and Paines, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous

ITA 5119/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit(It) 3(1)(2) Vs. Linklaters & Paines Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Kautilya C/O- Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 Tower 3, 28Th -30Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai. Pan: Aabfl2160M

Section 115ASection 9Section 9(1)(vil)

Article 5(2)(k)(i), without considering that the receipts of the assessee is fees for technical services as per meaning of section 9(1)(vil). Explanation 2 and therefore is taxable on gross basis under section 115A of the Income Tax Act. iii. Whether on the fact

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

treatment of payment received for supply of software license to the entities as under, treated as royalty by the AO under section 9(1)(vi) read with the applicable Treaty: i) Bharat Oman Refiners Ltd. (BORL) : Rs.9,89,167/- ii) Bharat Petroleum Corpn Ltd. (BPCL) : Rs.18,79,417/- Rs.28 ... standard software to certain Indian entities. The Assessing Officer taxed the aforesaid amounts as software royalty in the hands of the assessee under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with the applicable Treaty law. While holding receipts as royalty payment, the DRP primarily relied upon the decision

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Tungsten Network Limited, United Kingdom vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, Minto Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2238/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita Nos. 2237 & 2238/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Tungsten Network Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit Anil Saraf, No.8-2-350/3/C, Civic Centre, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Minto Road, Hyderabad, Telangana-34 New Delhi – 110 002 Pan : Aajct 5973 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Saraf, C.A. & Shri Anish Raj Saraf, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Bench :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

quashed. 5.2 Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee/appellant also submitted that learned Assessing Officer and Hon’ble DRP erred in complying provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, ignoring the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act where the appellant has not carried ... Revenue submitted that Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. is providing services and is making payments to the assessee. As per Clause (b) of Section 9(1)(vii), it becomes clear that it lays down the principle what is basically known as the “source rule”, that is, income of the recipient

Tungsten Network Limited, United Kingdom vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, Minto Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2237/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2358/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(i)

income, is governed by Article 23 as "Other Income" of India Singapore DTAA and hence, taxable under the Indian domestic tax laws under section 9(1)(i) of the Act. 6.1 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated ... account that the income is arising from an Indian Entity, viz., Adani Wilmar. It was argued that the provision of Section 9(1)(i) of the Act are not satisfied as payer is not the source of income. For this contention, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that :  The term

Criteo Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Ciricle 1(2)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2122/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

amounting to INR 1,90,33,349 and receipts from provision of advertisement space amounting to INR 6,09,254 as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and under Article 12(3) of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’), without appreciating that the said receipts ... consultants’ services amounting to 3,07,307 and travel-related receipts amounting to INR 19,96,671 as ‘Fee for technical services’ under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12(4) of India-Singapore DTAA, without appreciating that: a) The said services are neither technical

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1) [Formerly JCIT, Range-12, Kolkata ]

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

ITA 1865/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) M/S La Opala Rg Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 8Th Floor, Premises No.803 & 804 Eco Centre, Em-4, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700091, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5569J Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan & Deepak Mundhra, Tanmoy Kar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR

Section 133(6)Section 37

During the appellate proceedings, the appellant contested that the AO has wrongly invoked the provisions of section 5(2) and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. It further contested that agent to whom commission was paid, is not having any business connection in India, or through or from ... asset situate in India. Since the Income of foreign agents is not taxable in India by virtue of Section 5(2) read with Section 9(1) of the Act, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195 of the Act. 6.16 The contention of appellant are considered