← 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, Circle-2(2), International Taxation, Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Tata Communication (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 865/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.864, 865/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Tata Communications (Uk) Ltd., Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Bengaluru. Street London Ec4V3Bj, United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.2, 3/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 864, 865/Bang/2023) Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 M/S. Tata Communictions (Uk) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Street London Ec4V3Bj, Bengaluru. United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Department & Cross- Objections (Co) By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

assesee from VSL for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were not liable to be taxed in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act nor under the relevant DTAA. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contentions on the legal grounds and held that reopening

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), International Taxation, Bengaluru vs. Tata Communication (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 864/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.864, 865/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Tata Communications (Uk) Ltd., Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Bengaluru. Street London Ec4V3Bj, United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.2, 3/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 864, 865/Bang/2023) Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 M/S. Tata Communictions (Uk) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Street London Ec4V3Bj, Bengaluru. United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Department & Cross- Objections (Co) By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

assesee from VSL for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were not liable to be taxed in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act nor under the relevant DTAA. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contentions on the legal grounds and held that reopening

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 4(1)(1), Mumbai, India

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Us, It Has Been Stated That This Issue Stands Covered By The Decision Of The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case For The A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Which Has Followed Earlier Three Tribunal Orders.

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 9

below that any particular premises were at the disposal of the assessee The DRP has referred to the existence of business connection under section 9(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act 1961, but then that aspect of the matter is wholly irrelevant because in a case in which

ACIT Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1487/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115J

1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 and managerial services, hence, qualifies as FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he completed the assessments for all the assessment years under dispute by treating the payments made to the foreign entities as FTS and thereby ... repair of helicopter parts and, as such, are standardized services. Thus, he submitted, they cannot fall in the definition of FTS, either under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or the respective treaty provisions. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1486/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115J

1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 and managerial services, hence, qualifies as FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he completed the assessments for all the assessment years under dispute by treating the payments made to the foreign entities as FTS and thereby ... repair of helicopter parts and, as such, are standardized services. Thus, he submitted, they cannot fall in the definition of FTS, either under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or the respective treaty provisions. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1485/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115J

1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 and managerial services, hence, qualifies as FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he completed the assessments for all the assessment years under dispute by treating the payments made to the foreign entities as FTS and thereby ... repair of helicopter parts and, as such, are standardized services. Thus, he submitted, they cannot fall in the definition of FTS, either under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or the respective treaty provisions. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

ACIT Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1484/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115J

1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 and managerial services, hence, qualifies as FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he completed the assessments for all the assessment years under dispute by treating the payments made to the foreign entities as FTS and thereby ... repair of helicopter parts and, as such, are standardized services. Thus, he submitted, they cannot fall in the definition of FTS, either under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or the respective treaty provisions. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1483/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115J

1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 and managerial services, hence, qualifies as FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he completed the assessments for all the assessment years under dispute by treating the payments made to the foreign entities as FTS and thereby ... repair of helicopter parts and, as such, are standardized services. Thus, he submitted, they cannot fall in the definition of FTS, either under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or the respective treaty provisions. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1482/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115J

1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 and managerial services, hence, qualifies as FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he completed the assessments for all the assessment years under dispute by treating the payments made to the foreign entities as FTS and thereby ... repair of helicopter parts and, as such, are standardized services. Thus, he submitted, they cannot fall in the definition of FTS, either under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or the respective treaty provisions. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1397/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115J

1397/Del/2020 & 1482 to 1487/Del/2020 AYs: 2011-12 to 2016-17 and managerial services, hence, qualifies as FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he completed the assessments for all the assessment years under dispute by treating the payments made to the foreign entities as FTS and thereby ... repair of helicopter parts and, as such, are standardized services. Thus, he submitted, they cannot fall in the definition of FTS, either under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or the respective treaty provisions. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

M/S. Vedanga Vinimoy Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1165/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 14A

earlier assessment years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1 ... employment, shall be regarded as income earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton

DCIT-International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 133ASection 201Section 250

transaction. Since the AY is AY 2010-11 (ie, prior to the Finance Act, 2012 amendment by way of inserting Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, as per the SC in its judgment, the Finance Act, 2012 amendment has to be read as expanding the scope ... assessment years (para 73 - 74, 78 and 79). Therefore, the payments made under the customer contracts are not be treated as “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act itself for the subject AY 2010-11, even without reference to the DTAA. Under the DTAA, clearly these

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1025/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 133ASection 201Section 250

transaction. Since the AY is AY 2010-11 (ie, prior to the Finance Act, 2012 amendment by way of inserting Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, as per the SC in its judgment, the Finance Act, 2012 amendment has to be read as expanding the scope ... assessment years (para 73 - 74, 78 and 79). Therefore, the payments made under the customer contracts are not be treated as “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act itself for the subject AY 2010-11, even without reference to the DTAA. Under the DTAA, clearly these

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1024/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.1023 To 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 133ASection 201Section 250

transaction. Since the AY is AY 2010-11 (ie, prior to the Finance Act, 2012 amendment by way of inserting Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, as per the SC in its judgment, the Finance Act, 2012 amendment has to be read as expanding the scope ... assessment years (para 73 - 74, 78 and 79). Therefore, the payments made under the customer contracts are not be treated as “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act itself for the subject AY 2010-11, even without reference to the DTAA. Under the DTAA, clearly these

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1023/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.1023 To 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023

Section 133ASection 201Section 250

IT(IT)A Nos. 1023 to 1025 & 1046/Bang/2023 Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A

Globe Textiles (India) P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 455/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद

Globe Textiles (India) P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 454/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद

Globe Textiles (India) P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 453/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद

Globe Textiles (India) P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 452/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3375/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

earlier assessment years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1 ... employment, shall be regarded as income earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(/) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT V. S.R. Patton