← 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)

Dassault SystÈMes Soildworks Corporaion, Chennai vs. ACIT (International Taxation)_2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4534/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Kumar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

that the income from sale of shrink-wrapped software is taxable in India, being in the nature of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") between India ... that software is a process or a property similar to patent, invention, design, secret formula, process, etc as defined under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2.6. The learned AO has erred in law in stating that the retrospective amendment to section 9(1

Tricentis Gmbh, Austria vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International-Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3526/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

Establishment (PE) in India. 17. Without prejudice, he submitted, even the business income cannot be taxed under the domestic law in terms of section 9(1)(i)of the Act, as, the assessee has sold the software licenses to third party customers in India on principal-to-principal basis from ... part of the sale transaction was carried out in India. In this context, learned counsel drew our attention to Explanation 1(a) of section 9(1)(i) as it existed prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2022. He further submitted, estimation of profit at certain percentage

Tricentis Gmbh, Austria vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2705/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

Establishment (PE) in India. 17. Without prejudice, he submitted, even the business income cannot be taxed under the domestic law in terms of section 9(1)(i)of the Act, as, the assessee has sold the software licenses to third party customers in India on principal-to-principal basis from ... part of the sale transaction was carried out in India. In this context, learned counsel drew our attention to Explanation 1(a) of section 9(1)(i) as it existed prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2022. He further submitted, estimation of profit at certain percentage

M/S Model Exim, Kanpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 263(1)

income tax at source u/s 195 of the IT Act. As per provisions of section 195 of the IT Act, 1961 read with section 9(1)(vii), it is mandatory to deduct tax at source. The applicable provision has been contained under section 9 ... term “income deemed to accrue or arise in India” and liability of the assessee to deduct income tax at source on “other sums”, Section 9(1)(vii) of IT 1961 under: The following income deemed to accrue or arise in India: Page 10 of 24 (vii). Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 585/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.585/Mum/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cma Cgm Agencies Acit, Circle-6(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. India Private Limited, 407, City Tower, Boat Club Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Prakash L. Pathade Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing The Ao To Delete The Addition Of Rs.9,06,53,035/- Made By Ao On Account Of Expenditure For It Service Charges U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act, 1961 Treating Such Expense Incurred By The Assessee Company As Fees For Technical Services/Royalty?

For Appellant: Mahenov ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

artistic or scientific work ….’. To this extent, the definition of `royalties’ as per the DTAA with Portuguese is similar to that given under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act in as much as it also talks of `consideration for the use or, or the right to use, any copyright

Daechang Seat Co Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1301/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Daechang Seat Co Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 491, Mannur Village, Valarpuram V. Income Tax, Post, Sriperumbudur Tk, International Taxation 1(1), Kancheepuram District – 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aadcd-4448-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, Ca : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 250

under Article 11 of the India- Korea DTAA. b) The guarantee fees would also not fall under 'Fees for Technical service' as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or under the India - Korea DTAA. :-7-: ITA. No: 1301/Chny/2023 c) The guarantee fees would fall under the nature

Hcl Technologies Norway As, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2300/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

purpose of serving overseas customers directly, as one entity providing services to the other entity. 6 Payments not chargeable to tax under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act 6.1 That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that payments received by the Appellant during ... outside India and therefore, did not accrue or arise in India so as to be chargeable to tax in India in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 6.3 That the DRP/assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the exception provided

Hcl Australia Services Pty Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2299/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

purpose of serving overseas customers directly, as one entity providing services to the other entity. 6 Payments not chargeable to tax under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act 6.1 That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that payments received by the Appellant during ... outside India and therefore, did not accrue or arise in India so as to be chargeable to tax in India in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 6.3 That the DRP/assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the exception provided

Hcl Singapore Pte. Ltd (Successor to Axon Solutions Singapore Pte Limited), Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2298/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

purpose of serving overseas customers directly, as one entity providing services to the other entity. 6 Payments not chargeable to tax under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act 6.1 That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that payments received by the Appellant during ... outside India and therefore, did not accrue or arise in India so as to be chargeable to tax in India in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 6.3 That the DRP/assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the exception provided

Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4797/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ups Asia Group Pte. Ltd., Asst. Cit (International Taxation)- Bhagwati Compound, Plot No. 2, 4(3)(1), Vs. Compartment 10/11, Marol Co- 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Operative Industrial Estate, Off M.V. Nariman Point, Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aabcu 5192 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

under: Ground No. 1 Ground No. 1 - Erroneous conclusion of the Appellant Erroneous conclusion of the Appellant constituting a 'Business Connection' under Section 9(1)(i) of constituting a 'Business Connection' under Section 9(1)(i) of constituting a 'Business Connection' under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income ... erred in confirming that the Appellant has a nel ('DRP') erred in confirming that the Appellant has a Business Connection under Section 9(1)i) of the Act and PE under Business Connection under Section 9(1)i) of the Act and PE under Business Connection under Section 9(1

M/S. Tirubala International Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Kanpur

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

ITA 147/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Passed On 19.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ao, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs. 29,164/- On Account Of Late Payment Towards Employees Contribution To Esi. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Payment Of Rs.29,164 Towards Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund Was Made Before The "Due Date" Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore There Could Not Be Any Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount To The Returned Income. 3. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date As Mentioned In 36(1) (Va) Is To Be Read In Conjunction With Section 43B(B)

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 195Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

such certification that goods did not contain any harmful substance was a payment in the nature of, ‘fee for technical services’ covered under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. He pointed out that as per the explanation to section 9 of the Act, whether the income

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1149/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1149/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Doosan Power Systems India Income Tax, V. Private Limited, Corporate Circle -1(1), 18/2A, Sennerkuppam, Bye Chennai. Pass Road, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan:Aabcb-5946-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, CA
Section 144BSection 147Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

without appreciating the fact that the consideration paid to Hyupjin Shipping Co. Ltd, Korea fall within the ambit of provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances made u/s.40(a)(i) of the IT Act without appreciating the fact ... that the payment of freight charges to HSC as above qualifies as Royalty for the use of equipment (ship) under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act/Article 12 of the :-4-: ITA. No: 1149/Chny/2023 India-Korea tax-treaty. Thus, the freight charges of Rs.61

Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 28Section 40Section 92C

favour of the assessee.” 17. We note that identical is the situation in the present case of assessee, wherein, provisions of section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2 was invoked in respect of the payment made towards purchase of software that was capitalised on which depreciation u/s. 32 was claimed ... Court in para 100 held as under: “100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained

Vodafone Group Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle- 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6094/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice & And & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, , , , Accountant Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Accountantmember Member

group companies are in the nature of technical services, hence, the fee received would qualify as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) both under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA. Accordingly, he treated the entire receipt in assessment years

Vodafone Group Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice & And & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, , , , Accountant Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Accountantmember Member

group companies are in the nature of technical services, hence, the fee received would qualify as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) both under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA. Accordingly, he treated the entire receipt in assessment years

Vodafone Group Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle- 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6587/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice & And & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, , , , Accountant Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Accountantmember Member

group companies are in the nature of technical services, hence, the fee received would qualify as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) both under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA. Accordingly, he treated the entire receipt in assessment years

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengalore vs. Google Ireland Limited, Dublin

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member), SHRI KESAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Tandon, Ms. Nandita Phal & Shri AnmolFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(50)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90Section 90A

appreciate the law that the sale of advertisement spaces by Google Ireland is an income in the nature o(f) Royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 and as per article 12 of India-Ireland DTAA? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances ... taxable in the hands of GIL in India under the Act and India-Ireland DTAA as royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO noted that the ITAT, Bangalore has held the payments made to GIL towards Adwords program as royalty. 4. Based

The ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Va Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 326/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp) No.7/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.8/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.9/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.326/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V.A Tech Wabag Limited, Corporate Circle-3(2) No.17, Wabag House, Chennai 200 Feet Radial Road, Sunnambukolathur, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aabcv0225G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Kutty, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. C. Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Amitabh Shukla, A.M : Delay S. Appel- Appeal Nos. Ays Cit(A) Order Details Respondent In Filing No. Lant Appeal A B C D E F G Acit, Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / M/S. V.A Tech It(Tp)-7 / Cc- 2020-21 / 1029389607 (1) Wabag 1 2013-14 4 Days Chny/2021 3(2), Dt.31.12.2020 Limited, Chennai Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-8 / 2 2014-15 2020-21 / 1029389231 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-9 / 3 2015-16 2020-21 / 1029389414 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-326 3 4 2016-17 2020-21 / 1031510911 (1) /Chny/2021 Months Dt.16.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kutty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)

resident parties. The IT(TP)A No.7, 8, 9 & 326/Chny/2021 :- 8 -: Ld. AO however rejected the contentions by relying upon explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vii) and treated the same as fee for technical services which mandated prior deduction of TDS. The Ld. AO particularly invoked the amendment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1229/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

that services rendered by the assessee are project management services and thereby fall within the ambit of FTS as per Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The AO has concluded that services are in the nature of technical or consultancy services (Para 6.7 of the order ... assessee to its foreign Agent for arranging export sales and recovery of payments could not be regarded as fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act. The High Court held that the skill, business acumen and knowledge acquired by the non-resident were

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1226/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

that services rendered by the assessee are project management services and thereby fall within the ambit of FTS as per Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The AO has concluded that services are in the nature of technical or consultancy services (Para 6.7 of the order ... assessee to its foreign Agent for arranging export sales and recovery of payments could not be regarded as fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act. The High Court held that the skill, business acumen and knowledge acquired by the non-resident were