← 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)

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, Usa

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7354/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in holding that receipts amounting to INR 88,33,78,910/- earned by the respondent from its Indian customers constitute “Royalty” under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (‘the Act’) and is eligible to be taxed as such. 2.1 That on facts ... deduction by the assessee in its return of income for the subject AY. 14. After going through the Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer treated the entire receipts of Rs.8.33 crores without giving any expenses as taxable income to be taxed @ 40%. Existence

Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5782/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in holding that receipts amounting to INR 88,33,78,910/- earned by the respondent from its Indian customers constitute “Royalty” under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (‘the Act’) and is eligible to be taxed as such. 2.1 That on facts ... deduction by the assessee in its return of income for the subject AY. 14. After going through the Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer treated the entire receipts of Rs.8.33 crores without giving any expenses as taxable income to be taxed @ 40%. Existence

Nan Lion Ship Management Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1857/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Acit (Int. Tax) – 3(3)(1), Nan Lian Ship Management 1630, 16Th Floor, Air India Llc Building Nariman Point, C/O- Chamber 2 & 3, Cosmos बिधम/ Mumbai-400 021 Trade Place, Ground Floor, Vs. Khatu Building, Opp-Bse, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcn0478E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi /Dhanlaxmi Iyer, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Das, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.11.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.05.2022, Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 2

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Das
Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

meaning of 'time charter agreement'. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that ship is an equipment within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) r.w. explanation 2 of the Act and the amount 5 I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 Nan Lian Ship Management LLC received would fall under 'royalty ... resident company who has given the ship on time charter basis to Poompuhar Shipping Corp. Ltd. is a ‘Royalty’ within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi). Thus, this issue stands squarely covered against the assessee by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of the payer itself

Pdr Solutions Fzc, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax - Circle (Intl Tax) 3(3) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1856/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka a/wFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

case and in law, the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in alleging that income from Domain Name Registration services is taxable as 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act') and under the India- UAE treaty (tax treaty"). ). The AO based on his conclusion contended that

Pdr Solutions Fzc, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax - Circle (Intl Tax) 3(3) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1855/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka a/wFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

case and in law, the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in alleging that income from Domain Name Registration services is taxable as 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act') and under the India- UAE treaty (tax treaty"). ). The AO based on his conclusion contended that

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax International Taxation-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

learned DRP in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2017–18 treated the aforesaid income as royalty within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12 of India Singapore DTAA. In further proceedings, the learned DRP following the directions rendered in assessee ... learned DRP in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2017–18 treated the aforesaid income as royalty within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12 of India Singapore DTAA. In further proceedings, the learned DRP following the directions rendered in assessee

Owens-Corning(Singapore)Pte.Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Internatioal Taxation) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6529/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Megha Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR
Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

9, 14, 87,876 during the year under consideration by treating the same as fees for technical services in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and Singapore (India-Singapore ... assessee’s receipts as FTS as per Article-12(4)(a) of the DTAA between India and Singapore. Consequently taxed the same under section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act read with Article-12(4)(a) of the DTAA between India and Singapore. 12. Against this order assessee preferred

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5193/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Service Fees of Rs. 42,42,933, as royalty within the meaning of Article 13(3) of India France DTAA as well as section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. As regards the Management Service Fees received by the assessee, the AO treated the same as fees for technical services ... assessee with the Indian company in India. Accordingly, the AO came to the conclusion that income is taxable under the head royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO also held that the income is also taxable as royalty under the provisions of India France DTAA. Accordingly

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7248/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Service Fees of Rs. 42,42,933, as royalty within the meaning of Article 13(3) of India France DTAA as well as section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. As regards the Management Service Fees received by the assessee, the AO treated the same as fees for technical services ... assessee with the Indian company in India. Accordingly, the AO came to the conclusion that income is taxable under the head royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO also held that the income is also taxable as royalty under the provisions of India France DTAA. Accordingly

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7247/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Service Fees of Rs. 42,42,933, as royalty within the meaning of Article 13(3) of India France DTAA as well as section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. As regards the Management Service Fees received by the assessee, the AO treated the same as fees for technical services ... assessee with the Indian company in India. Accordingly, the AO came to the conclusion that income is taxable under the head royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO also held that the income is also taxable as royalty under the provisions of India France DTAA. Accordingly

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Service Fees of Rs. 42,42,933, as royalty within the meaning of Article 13(3) of India France DTAA as well as section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. As regards the Management Service Fees received by the assessee, the AO treated the same as fees for technical services ... assessee with the Indian company in India. Accordingly, the AO came to the conclusion that income is taxable under the head royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO also held that the income is also taxable as royalty under the provisions of India France DTAA. Accordingly

General Electric Company, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 82/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

dependent agent PE as per the provisions of the tax treaties and business connection as per the provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The activities of the third parties working for the GE group as mentioned above also may constitute agency ... services are rendered from outside India, such payments will be income deemed to accrue or arise in India as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such amounts will also be taxable as fees for technical services or business income depending upon

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

dependent agent PE as per the provisions of the tax treaties and business connection as per the provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The activities of the third parties working for the GE group as mentioned above also may constitute agency ... services are rendered from outside India, such payments will be income deemed to accrue or arise in India as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such amounts will also be taxable as fees for technical services or business income depending upon

Amee Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

question of withholding tax does not arise. The AO treated the transaction as royalty by holding that as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, the income by way of royalty payable by a person who is the resident, except where the royalty is payable ... should be brought to tax. The AO relied on the retrospective amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2007 including an Explanation to section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, thereby invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act disallowed the above amount and added back

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the revenue’s corresponding grounds stand dismissed

ITA 1322/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143Section 160(1)Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

made by the assessee to non-resident entity for services rendered outside India as fees for technical services or not in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The issue before us is disallowance of sum paid to non-resident without ... Heavy Industries Ltd., vs. DIT, (supra. The Hon’ble Supreme court while deciding the issue of FTS has considered pre-amended provisions of section 9(1)(vii) and held that if any payment in the nature of FTS to be taxed in India, as per provisions of section 9(1

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) (International Taxation), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited towards purchase of advertisement space to be in the nature of 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 10. Erred in upholding the order of the Ld JDIT that the amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited ... advertisement space to advertisers in India. The Revenue had sought to characterize these payments received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable

Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 950/BANG/2017[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited towards purchase of advertisement space to be in the nature of 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 10. Erred in upholding the order of the Ld JDIT that the amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited ... advertisement space to advertisers in India. The Revenue had sought to characterize these payments received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable

Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 949/BANG/2017[2014 - 15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited towards purchase of advertisement space to be in the nature of 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 10. Erred in upholding the order of the Ld JDIT that the amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited ... advertisement space to advertisers in India. The Revenue had sought to characterize these payments received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable

Deputy Director of Income Tax(International Taxation), Bangalore vs. M/S Google India P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1295/BANG/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited towards purchase of advertisement space to be in the nature of 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 10. Erred in upholding the order of the Ld JDIT that the amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited ... advertisement space to advertisers in India. The Revenue had sought to characterize these payments received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable

Google India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1190/BANG/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited towards purchase of advertisement space to be in the nature of 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 10. Erred in upholding the order of the Ld JDIT that the amount payable by the Appellant to Google Ireland Limited ... advertisement space to advertisers in India. The Revenue had sought to characterize these payments received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable