← 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)

The Jt Comm of Income Tax (OSD) (It) -Cir 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. Shri Kalpesh R. Jhaveri, Mumbai

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

ITA 636/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

DCIT(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result Ground No. 1(c) raised by the revenue is also dismissed

ITA 563/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shriaby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit (Tds)-2(3), Room No. 718, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. ...... Appellant Vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aabct3784C ..... Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair- Cit (Dr) Respondent By : Sh. Hiten Chande Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-60, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 30.11.2018 Passed Under Section 201(1) / 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita Nair- CIT (DR)For Respondent: Sh. Hiten Chande
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

purview of fees for professional services. As regards, fee for technical services (FTS), explanation (b) to section 194) read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) defines 'fees for technical services’ as follows: 6 ITA No. 563/Mum/2019-Tata AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. “................."fees for technical services” means any consideration ... management of the company etc which is covered under Technical Services as per the Explanation 2 to sub-section (vii) to section 9(1) of the I.T. Act, which clearly defines "fees for technical services" means any consideration(including any lump sum consideration) for rendering of any managerial, technical

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2508/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

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.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2507/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

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.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2506/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

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.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2505/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

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. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1516/BANG/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

Distribution Agreement” dated 12.12.2005 to GIL constituted 2 IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 & Ors. M/s.Google India Private Limited. “Royalty” under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland? III(2) Whether the impugned ... Copyright Act. It was held that the sums payable by assessee to Google Ireland are covered by clause (v) to Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act and hence 'royalty'. (iii) In part III, the AO held that the assessee has been granted

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1515/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

Distribution Agreement” dated 12.12.2005 to GIL constituted 2 IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 & Ors. M/s.Google India Private Limited. “Royalty” under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland? III(2) Whether the impugned ... Copyright Act. It was held that the sums payable by assessee to Google Ireland are covered by clause (v) to Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act and hence 'royalty'. (iii) In part III, the AO held that the assessee has been granted

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1514/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

Distribution Agreement” dated 12.12.2005 to GIL constituted 2 IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 & Ors. M/s.Google India Private Limited. “Royalty” under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland? III(2) Whether the impugned ... Copyright Act. It was held that the sums payable by assessee to Google Ireland are covered by clause (v) to Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act and hence 'royalty'. (iii) In part III, the AO held that the assessee has been granted

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1513/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

Distribution Agreement” dated 12.12.2005 to GIL constituted 2 IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 & Ors. M/s.Google India Private Limited. “Royalty” under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland? III(2) Whether the impugned ... Copyright Act. It was held that the sums payable by assessee to Google Ireland are covered by clause (v) to Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act and hence 'royalty'. (iii) In part III, the AO held that the assessee has been granted

M/S. the Mathworks, Inc, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 364/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.364/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 M/S.The Mathworks, Inc. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick Income-Tax, V. Massachusetts 01760 International Taxation Cir.2(2) Bengaluru. United Sates Of America Pan : Aafct7230H. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Kurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karhihalli, CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

treating the receipts of INR 780,351,983 from licensing of software as 'royalties' and subjecting the same to income-tax under section 9(1)( vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (The Treaty'). 3. The learned ... learned AO erred in treating the receipts of INR 408,881,074 towards maintenance services as Fee for Technical Services as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Fee for included services as per para 4(a) of Article 12 of Treaty. (Tax effect

Dy CIT (Int.Tax)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 762/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.762 & 761/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy Cit(Int.Tax)-2(1)(1) M/S. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Room No. 1713, 17Th बिधम/ 1. Raffles Link, 03/04-01, Floor, Air India Building, Vs. South Lobby, Singapore, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Foreign, Singapore 400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccc7328N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik Poddar/Harsh Shah, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 25.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C For Ay 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik
Section 143(3)

arise in India to the assessee. Further, section 9 elaborates the expression “Income deemed to accrue or arise in India”. As per section 9(1)(i) of the Act, all the income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through ... through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act, further provides as under: “(a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not 8 I.T.A

Dy CIT-(Int-Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 761/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.762 & 761/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy Cit(Int.Tax)-2(1)(1) M/S. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Room No. 1713, 17Th बिधम/ 1. Raffles Link, 03/04-01, Floor, Air India Building, Vs. South Lobby, Singapore, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Foreign, Singapore 400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccc7328N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik Poddar/Harsh Shah, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 25.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C For Ay 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik
Section 143(3)

arise in India to the assessee. Further, section 9 elaborates the expression “Income deemed to accrue or arise in India”. As per section 9(1)(i) of the Act, all the income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through ... through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act, further provides as under: “(a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not 8 I.T.A

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Sucessor to Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation 3(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1813/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 4(2)

held that payments made by the assessee to the foreign vendors fall under the category of ‘fees for technical services’ as defined in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, on account of failure to deduct tax at source, assessee was deemed to be an assessee in default within

M/S Iqvia Ag (Previously Known As Ims Ag, Switzerland vs. The DCIT (Intl Tax) 2(2) 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 665/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Iqvia Ag Dcit (It) – 2(2)(2) V. (Previously Known As Ims Ag) 16Th Floor, Air India Building C/O. Iqvia Consulting & Nariman Point Information Services India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 Unit No. 902, 9Th Floor Supreme Business Park Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aacci5872K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh
Section 144C(5)Section 90(2)

Rs.44,34,93,451/- in the nature of Subscription Fees for standard online market research database on pharmaceutical sector taxed as Royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and under Article 12(3) of the India- Switzerland Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty") 1 ... online database of statistically compiled pharmaceutical data collected from public domain ("IQVIA Reports") is in the nature of 'Royalty as defined under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty 2. The AO/ DRP erred in not appreciating that

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 771/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee if the assessee has earned it in India. The word "earned" had been

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 770/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts". 18. There was and is no ambiguity in the main provision of section 9(1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee if the assessee has earned it in India. The word "earned" had been

American Chemical Society, Gurgaon vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1521/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Usmani
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

chargeable to tax as royalty in terms of Article 12(3) of India-US Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") and under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP have erred ... being received for the use or right to use copyright in a literary or scientific work within the meaning of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of India-US DTAA. 2.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case

American Chemical Society, Gurgaon vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1520/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Usmani
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

chargeable to tax as royalty in terms of Article 12(3) of India-US Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") and under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP have erred ... being received for the use or right to use copyright in a literary or scientific work within the meaning of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of India-US DTAA. 2.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Asst. Comm. of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Exxon Mobile Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400022

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross-

ITA 1283/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Exxon Mobile Company Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Aayakar Road No. 8, Sion (East), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 113/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1283/Mum/2022) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Exxon Mobile Company Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, Road Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 8, Sion (East), 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Mumbai-400020. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. A/W Mr. Dhiraj Jain Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR
Section 195Section 40

fees for technical services' as charges are not in the nature of 'fees for technical services' as defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Income defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Income defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1 ... earning income from source outside India and therefore covered by the exception to section India and therefore covered by t he exception to section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and therefore not chargeable to tax. )(b) of the Act and therefore not chargeable