← 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)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 3353/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No.3348/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Ita No.3353/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Rolland Enterprises Ltd., Central Circle-19, C/O Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. New Delhi C-56, Lfg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Co No.352/Del/2015 (In Ita No.3348/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08) Co No.357/Del/2015 (In Ita No.3353/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13) Rolland Enterprises Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. Central Circle-19, C-56, Lfg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan : Aaccr7403D Assessees By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca, Pranav Yadav, Adv., Nippun Mittal, Ca & Ms Anjali Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr & Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.12.2023 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi.

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 124Section 124(4)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

India. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 9(1) of the I.T. Act as the revenue has been earned because of underlying assets of the assessee wholly and totally situated in India

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 3348/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No.3348/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Ita No.3353/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Rolland Enterprises Ltd., Central Circle-19, C/O Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. New Delhi C-56, Lfg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Co No.352/Del/2015 (In Ita No.3348/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08) Co No.357/Del/2015 (In Ita No.3353/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13) Rolland Enterprises Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. Central Circle-19, C-56, Lfg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan : Aaccr7403D Assessees By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca, Pranav Yadav, Adv., Nippun Mittal, Ca & Ms Anjali Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr & Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.12.2023 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi.

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 124Section 124(4)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

India. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the provisions of section 9(1) of the I.T. Act as the revenue has been earned because of underlying assets of the assessee wholly and totally situated in India

DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi vs. Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 673/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. SushilFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 40Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

assessee held that the services provided by the said parties fall within the purview of Fees for Technical Services (“FTS”) as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) as per Article 12(4) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-USA DTAA ... also for enduring benefits to assessee’s business. Thus soliciting of business orders is only a small part of it. As per section 9(1)(vii) ‘Fee for Technical Services’ (FTS) means any consideration received for rendering of any technical, managerial or consultancy services. As per the agreement

Sunbeam Lightweighting Solutions Pvt Ltd (Formely Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 115/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. SushilFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 40Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

assessee held that the services provided by the said parties fall within the purview of Fees for Technical Services (“FTS”) as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) as per Article 12(4) of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-USA DTAA ... also for enduring benefits to assessee’s business. Thus soliciting of business orders is only a small part of it. As per section 9(1)(vii) ‘Fee for Technical Services’ (FTS) means any consideration received for rendering of any technical, managerial or consultancy services. As per the agreement