← 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)

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2153/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL

New Skies Satellites B.V., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2733/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year : 2021-22] New Skies Satellites B.V., Vs Dcit, C/O-Ernst & Young Llp, Golf Cirlce-2(2)(2), View Corporate Tower, Tower-B, International Taxation, Sector-42, Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaccn1866C Appellant Respondent Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Appellant By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent By S/Shri Vivek K. Upadhayay, Sr. Dr & Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2024 Order Per G.S. Pannu, Vp : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Dcit, Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi Dated 28.08.2023. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

holding that the payments received by the Appellant as consideration for data transmission services are in the nature of 'Royalty' as defined under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and Article 12(4) of the DTAA. 2.1. That without prejudice to the above ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Panel and the Ld.AO erred in reading into the expanded meaning of ‘Royalty’ contained in section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as retrospectively amended by Finance Act, 2012, for the purpose of interpreting the definition of ‘Royalty’ as provided under Article

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore

ITA 811/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.811/Bang/2024 & Sp No.22/Bang/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property;' 7.2.1 The term "process" used under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) in the definition of 'royalty' does not imply any 'process' which is publicly available. The term "process" occurring under clauses ... Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) means a "process" which is an item of intellectual property. Clause (iii) of the said Explanation reads as follows: "(iii) the use of any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property" Clauses

M/S. Datalog Technologies Private Limited, Coimbatoree vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

ITA 937/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Datalog Technologies V. Income-Tax, Private Limited, International Taxation, Flat No. 6, 3Rd Street, Coimbatore. Narayandas Layout, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aabcd-5720-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

made to AGANSA by the Assessee was towards services rendered in the nature of “consultancy services”, which is falling under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, and thus liable for deduction of Tax at source under Section 195 of the :-4-: ITA. Nos: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 ... held by the ITAT, Ahmedabad in DCIT Vs Wellspun Corporation Ltd. 55 ITR (Tribunal) 405. "The key to taxability of an amount under section 9(1)(vii) is that is should constitute "consideration" for rendition of technical services. The case of the revenue fails on this short test

M/S. Datalog Technologies Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Inernational Taxation, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

ITA 936/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Datalog Technologies V. Income-Tax, Private Limited, International Taxation, Flat No. 6, 3Rd Street, Coimbatore. Narayandas Layout, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aabcd-5720-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

made to AGANSA by the Assessee was towards services rendered in the nature of “consultancy services”, which is falling under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, and thus liable for deduction of Tax at source under Section 195 of the :-4-: ITA. Nos: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 ... held by the ITAT, Ahmedabad in DCIT Vs Wellspun Corporation Ltd. 55 ITR (Tribunal) 405. "The key to taxability of an amount under section 9(1)(vii) is that is should constitute "consideration" for rendition of technical services. The case of the revenue fails on this short test

M/S. Datalog Technologies Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

ITA 935/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Datalog Technologies V. Income-Tax, Private Limited, International Taxation, Flat No. 6, 3Rd Street, Coimbatore. Narayandas Layout, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aabcd-5720-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

made to AGANSA by the Assessee was towards services rendered in the nature of “consultancy services”, which is falling under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, and thus liable for deduction of Tax at source under Section 195 of the :-4-: ITA. Nos: 935, 936 & 937/Chny/2023 ... held by the ITAT, Ahmedabad in DCIT Vs Wellspun Corporation Ltd. 55 ITR (Tribunal) 405. "The key to taxability of an amount under section 9(1)(vii) is that is should constitute "consideration" for rendition of technical services. The case of the revenue fails on this short test

ACIT Circle 25(1), New Delhi vs. Verizon Communications India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 360/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

made in the definition of ‘Royalty’ under the Act vide Finance Act, 2012 by way of insertion of Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot override the beneficial provisions of tax treaties. The assessee also pointed out before the AO that its case ... disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act by holding payments made by the assessee to MCICS and MCII as ‘Royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 4. In appeal, before CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that its case is squarely covered by the decision

Kony Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1572/CHNY/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1572/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kony Inc., Deputy Commissioner Of 5301, Southwest Parkway, V. Income Tax, Suite 250, International Taxation -1(2), Austin, Texas, Chennai. Usa - 5301 [Pan: Aaeck-4771-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

receipts from annual maintenance charges of the software are in the nature of FIS/FTS, both under the tax treaty as well as under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount of Rs.1,23,20,383/-. Learned DRP, while deciding the objections ... 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

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 978/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

holding that, the payment made was towards the ‘use of copyright’ and therefore, is taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee capitalised the software purchased and the expenditure was not claimed as revenue by the assessee ... under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 958/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

holding that, the payment made was towards the ‘use of copyright’ and therefore, is taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee capitalised the software purchased and the expenditure was not claimed as revenue by the assessee ... under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee

M/S Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 484/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedappeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

holding that, the payment made was towards the 'use of copyright' and therefore, is taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee capitalised the software purchased and the expenditure was not claimed as revenue by the assessee ... under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty' and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle - 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1166/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

holding that, the payment made was towards the ‘use of copyright’ and therefore, is taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee capitalised the software purchased and the expenditure was not claimed as revenue by the assessee ... under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1092/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

holding that, the payment made was towards the ‘use of copyright’ and therefore, is taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee capitalised the software purchased and the expenditure was not claimed as revenue by the assessee ... under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1046/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

holding that, the payment made was towards the ‘use of copyright’ and therefore, is taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee capitalised the software purchased and the expenditure was not claimed as revenue by the assessee ... under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee

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

ITA 1045/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedappeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

holding that, the payment made was towards the 'use of copyright' and therefore, is taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee capitalised the software purchased and the expenditure was not claimed as revenue by the assessee ... under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty' and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Star Cruise Management Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 3886/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jishaan JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 250Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(i)

Star Travel (India) Services Put Ltd (“SCITSPL) does not constitute an agency PE of the assessee within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act with regard to the business income received by it, especially in view of the fact that there is no DTAA

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Star Cruise Management Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 3873/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jishaan JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 250Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(i)

Star Travel (India) Services Put Ltd (“SCITSPL) does not constitute an agency PE of the assessee within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act with regard to the business income received by it, especially in view of the fact that there is no DTAA

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Star Cruise Management Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 3871/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jishaan JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 250Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(i)

Star Travel (India) Services Put Ltd (“SCITSPL) does not constitute an agency PE of the assessee within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act with regard to the business income received by it, especially in view of the fact that there is no DTAA

Gartner Ireland Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allo

ITA 2460/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gartner Ireland Ltd., Dcit-2(3)(2), 3Rd Floor, Two Park Place, 17Th Floor, 1711, Air India Hatch Street, Dublin 2, Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Ireland D02 Np94. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccg 2919 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farooq Irani Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

amounting to Rs. 86,52,72,951 by the Appellant during the captioned year are tax captioned year are taxable as Royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income able as Royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and under Article 12 of India

DCIT, Circle 3(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ricardo Uk Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1410/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

only to the extent as is attributable to that permanent establishment. This is in pari materia with clause (a) of Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act. Thus where the entire activity of an enterprise are not carried out in a Contracting State where