“Section 9(1)”

Barclays Capital Mauritius Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, It 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7209/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Room No.427, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate With Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Shri Harshit Sangoi. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

Indian Stock Exchanges, the entire management and operations of the depository is admittedly in India. Let us, in this backdrop, look at Section 9(1)(i) which provides that “all incomes accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or though or from ... mind the fact that this circular was issued in view of the apprehensions that on account of Explanation 5 having been inserted in Section 9(1)(i) “an extended application of the provisions of the Explanation may result in 7 taxation of dividend income declared by a foreign company outside

Spe India Films Holding Llc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) -4(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

Appellant on account of distribution of theatrical rights in India, is covered under the specific exemption provided by Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, pertaining to consideration received for the sale, distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films and accordingly, not taxable in India. 1.3. The Appellant ... respect to distribution of theatrical nights as the same is not taxable in India as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2. Interest income of INR 28,48,508 taxed twice and at a higher rate 2.1. The learned ACIT erred in considering total income

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

lower authorities erred in holding that the payments made towards export sales commission are in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1.2. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law, in not appreciating the decision ... that Sulzes Pumps I Pvt. ltd.;AY 15-16 no tax has deducted at source on such expenditure under Section 195 read with section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, the disallowance of ₹3,73,10,068/- was made. We find that assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale

DCIT-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Karvat Cover More Assist Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

ground, that, the amount payable to them was chargeable to tax in India under Article 12 of DTAA dealing with „Royalty‟ and section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. As a result, the AO disallowed the payment of Rs. 5,40,49,783, under provisions of section

Spencer Stuart International B.V., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

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. (A.Ys ... 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

DCIT (It) 3(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

treated as an agent within the meaning of section 163(1), there was no business connection within the meaning of section 9(1) of the Act so the income accruing to the non resident foreign company could not be assessed through as agent. That order was affirmed by the Tribunal ... assessee company and the income could not be deemed to accrue or arise to the foreign company in India within the meaning of section 9(1) as such, the said sum paid to the foreign company at London was not assessable in the hands of the assessee company even

Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. The ACIT (Intl Tax) -2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

that the income from sale of shrink-wrapped software is taxable in India, being in the nature of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") between India ... that software is a process or a property similar to patent, invention, design, secret formula, process, etc as defined under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2.5 The learned AO has erred in law in stating that the retrospective amendment to section 9(1

Bank of America N.A, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bank Of America National Commissioner Of Income Tax Association, (International Taxation), Range-1, Ground Floor, A Wing, One Vs. 3Rd Floor, Room No. 9, Mittal Court Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla ‘B’ Wing, Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 1537 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Vasanti Patel Revenue By : Mr. Sunil K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

between India and the United States of America and by dia and the United States of America and by treating the amendment in section 9(1)(v) of the Act as being treating the amendment in section 9(1)(v) of the Act as being treating the amendment in section ... assessee in response to the show cause no response to the show cause notice issued, the Ld. Ld. CIT held that explanation to section 9(1)(v)(c) explanation to section 9(1)(v)(c) introduced by way of Finance by way of Finance Act 2015, with effect from 01/04/2016

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

parallel treaties. The Court delivered its judgment in the context of the very amendments that are in question today; the Explanations to Section 9(1)(vi) vis a vis the interpretation of a Double Tax Avoidance Agreement. This Court rejected that any amendment could change the situation and render ... whether the payments received by the assessee from Reliance can be taxed as royalty in view of the amendment to section 9(1)of the Act. It is said that a DTAA is a result of negotiations between two countries as to the extent to which special concessional tax provisions