← 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)

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 720/CHNY/2020[2018-19 (October, 2017 to March, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 195(2)

examined in light of various averments including cost sharing agreement, certificate issued by the Deloitte GmbH and the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with DTAA between India and Germany. Further, similar issue was considered by the Mumbai Benches of the ITAT in assessee’s group ... having not rendered any services to the assessee, payment made cannot be treated as fees for technical services as per Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vii) has not been considered by the Departmental Authorities both factually and legally. Further, the contention of the assessee that when another Indian company

United Arab Shipping Company Ltd.(Formerly Known As United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2254/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 270ASection 90(2)

held as Business receipt of the assessee from its operation in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act and as per the Article 7 of the Treaty. 4.2. The assessee preferred objections before the ld. DRP. The relevant objection No.4 raised by the assessee

Spencer Stuart International B.V. Tax, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It) -4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 514/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

appellant from Spencer Stuart India Private Limited [SS India] towards executive search fees is taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Articles 12(5)(a) and / or 12(5)(b) of the India- Netherlands tax treaty ... received by the appellant from Spencer Stuart India Private Limited [SS India] towards management fees is taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Articles 12(5)(a) and / or 12(5)(b) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty

Spencer Stuart International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

appellant from Spencer Stuart India Private Limited [SS India] towards executive search fees is taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Articles 12(5)(a) and / or 12(5)(b) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty ... India for expenses incurred on its behalf at cost (without any mark-up) as taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as under Articles 12(5) (a) and 12(5)(b) of the India Netherlands tax treaty

Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle - 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2791/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S.Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.672, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Temple Tower, Chennai. Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.

For Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

record. M/s.Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: 2. The learned CIT(A) fundamentally assumed jurisdiction fact wrongly and failed to appreciate the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that deduction of 25% of project value retained

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) - RG. 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6935/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Are As Follows:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(i)

concluding that the Appellant has a business Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 2 of 17 connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act on the basis that the Appellant is earning income from India on a regular and continuous basis. 2. Ground ... view of this, there is a clear cut business connection and the income of the Assessee is taxable in India in terms of section 9(1)(i) of the Act. • Further, the assessee is having a regular flow of income from India which further strength the argument that the Assessee

M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 338/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri, Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 92C

other personnel" and are in the nature of fees for technical services within the meaning of Explanation 2 to sub clause (vii) of section 9(1) and Article 12(4) of the relevant DTAA and are subject to deduction of tax at source under section195. 30.1 The ruling

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2891/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Jr. Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR)
Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 80JSection 9(1)(vii)

towards reimbursement of salary, amounting to Rs 36,87,29,475 are in the nature of fees for technical services' as defined in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ['Tax Treaty"]. 10. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and facts ... case, it was held that "consideration received by the assessee for sale of software cannot be treated as royalty under the provision of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12 of the India-Sweden DTAA and that the sale of software products by the assessee

Basf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 553/MUM/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022
Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

rendered by BASF to its Indian affiliates are technical services which fall within the ambit of the term "fees for technical services" under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA'). 3. erred in not appreciating that

Basf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 552/MUM/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022
Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

rendered by BASF to its Indian affiliates are technical services which fall within the ambit of the term "fees for technical services" under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA'). 3. erred in not appreciating that

Basf Se, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2070/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

rendered by BASF to its Indian affiliates are technical services which fall within the ambit of the term "fees for technical services" under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA'). 3. erred in not appreciating that

Integra Software Services P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 736/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for Shri. S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (JCIT) / Shri. Kumar Ajeet Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

appreciate further that the sustenance of the said addition on the reckoning of the outsourced services as FTS within the scope of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act r/w the provisions of section 195 of the Act on the application of section

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1691/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

erred in holding that payment made to non-resident is taxable in India in terms of provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and DTAA between India and Germany and the assessee is liable to pay TDS. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora ... entities. Therefore, any payment made under this agreement would fall within the meaning of technical services as per the Explanation-2 given under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since the nature of the services 7 I.T.A. Nos.1187 & 3122/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 1690 & 1691/Chny/17 provided by the parent company comes

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1690/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

erred in holding that payment made to non-resident is taxable in India in terms of provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and DTAA between India and Germany and the assessee is liable to pay TDS. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora ... entities. Therefore, any payment made under this agreement would fall within the meaning of technical services as per the Explanation-2 given under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since the nature of the services 7 I.T.A. Nos.1187 & 3122/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 1690 & 1691/Chny/17 provided by the parent company comes

Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3122/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

erred in holding that payment made to non-resident is taxable in India in terms of provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and DTAA between India and Germany and the assessee is liable to pay TDS. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora ... entities. Therefore, any payment made under this agreement would fall within the meaning of technical services as per the Explanation-2 given under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since the nature of the services 7 I.T.A. Nos.1187 & 3122/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 1690 & 1691/Chny/17 provided by the parent company comes

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

erred in holding that payment made to non-resident is taxable in India in terms of provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and DTAA between India and Germany and the assessee is liable to pay TDS. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora ... entities. Therefore, any payment made under this agreement would fall within the meaning of technical services as per the Explanation-2 given under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since the nature of the services 7 I.T.A. Nos.1187 & 3122/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 1690 & 1691/Chny/17 provided by the parent company comes

The JCIT (OSD)(It)-Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai

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

ITA 640/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 5(2)

provisions are legal fiction created 4 Rahul Rajnikant Parikh Kalpesh R. Jhaveri by the statute and hence they have to be construed strictly. Section 9(1)(v) of the Act deals with “interest income” and it reads as under:- “9(1) (v) 2 income by way of interest payable

The Jt.Comm of Income Tax (OSD)(It) -Circle-3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. Shri Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai

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

ITA 639/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08
Section 5(2)

provisions are legal fiction created 4 Rahul Rajnikant Parikh Kalpesh R. Jhaveri by the statute and hence they have to be construed strictly. Section 9(1)(v) of the Act deals with “interest income” and it reads as under:- “9(1) (v) 2 income by way of interest payable

The Jt Comm. of Income Tax (OSD) (It) X (OSD) (It), Mumbai vs. Shri Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai

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

ITA 638/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07
Section 5(2)

provisions are legal fiction created 4 Rahul Rajnikant Parikh Kalpesh R. Jhaveri by the statute and hence they have to be construed strictly. Section 9(1)(v) of the Act deals with “interest income” and it reads as under:- “9(1) (v) 2 income by way of interest payable

The Jt. CIT (OSD) (It) -Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. Shri Kalpesh R. Jhaveri, Mumvbai

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

ITA 637/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07
Section 5(2)

provisions are legal fiction created 4 Rahul Rajnikant Parikh Kalpesh R. Jhaveri by the statute and hence they have to be construed strictly. Section 9(1)(v) of the Act deals with “interest income” and it reads as under:- “9(1) (v) 2 income by way of interest payable