← 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 Cir. 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Smartconnect Technologies Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1317/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Smartconnect Dcit Cir – 15(3)(2), Tehcnologies Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, बिधम/ A-702, Harbour View, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. Sector-19, Nerul, Navi K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 706 400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaocs87763B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Rajesh S. Shah, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)

For Appellant: Shri Milind ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh S. Shah
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee to its AE for the purchase of the application software named Genesys for reselling is treated as royalty within the meaning of section 9(1) (vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on which no tax is deducted at source by the assessee company." ii) "On the facts ... treating the purchase of software „GENESYS‟ and for reselling it customer in India which has been treated as „royalty‟ within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that, assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of information technology

ACIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industrial Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5688/MUM/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5688/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Reliance Acit (Ltu-2), Industries Ltd. 29Th Floor, Centre-1, बिधम/ Maker Chamber Iv, World Trade Center, 3Rd Floor, 222, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacr5055K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.06.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-57

For Appellant: Shri Milind ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld
Section 195Section 195(1)

Article 7 of the India –USA DTAA and neither it has any business connection in India as defined in Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. 15 I.T.A. No. 5688/Mum/2019 M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Cerner Healthcare Solution India Private Limited(Earlier Known As Cerner India Health Services Private Limited) ( Erstwhile Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 254/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

that the services provided by the seconded employee is in the nature of fees for technical services (FTS) defined in explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) and hence tax need to be deducted at source. The assessing officer relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1073/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9 ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1071/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9 ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1070/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9 ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1069/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9 ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1066/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9 ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1065/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

taking into account that the payments made by the assessee to Intelsat for transponder charges are specifically covered by Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) as being included in the expression 'process' and hence fall under definition of royalty as per Explanation 2 to section 9 ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account that Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Legislature by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 988/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

that income arising due to payments for the services mentioned would come under the ambit of “fees for technical services” as described in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The nature of remittance as per Form 15CB is ‘training charges’. According to him, the amount paid for training services ... into whether the fees paid by the assessee towards training is tax deductible, we will look at the relevant provisions of section 9(1)(vii) which is as follows:- Definition of Fees for Technical Services as per section 9(1)(vii) “(vii) income by way of fees for technical services

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 987/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

services mentioned in section 5(2) of the Act would come under the ambit of “fees for technical services” as described in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the payments made to non-residents in this case is chargeable to tax in India as per the provisions ... into whether the fees paid by the assessee towards training is tax deductible, we will look at the relevant provisions of section 9(1)(vii) and also relevant Article of DTAA. Definition of Fees for Technical Services as per section 9(1)(vii) (vii) income by way of fees

DCIT (It)-4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Taj Tv. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1718/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee to non-residents are specifically covered by Explanations 2, 5 and 6 and hence fall under definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; xiii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking ... into account that Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify

DCIT (It) -4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1717/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee to non-residents are specifically covered by Explanations 2, 5 and 6 and hence fall under definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; xiii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking ... into account that Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation -4(1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1462/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee to non-residents are specifically covered by Explanations 2, 5 and 6 and hence fall under definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; xiii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking ... into account that Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) -4 (1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1461/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee to non-residents are specifically covered by Explanations 2, 5 and 6 and hence fall under definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; xiii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking ... into account that Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify

Taj Tv Ltd, Mauritius vs. DCIT (International Taxation)- 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1460/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee to non-residents are specifically covered by Explanations 2, 5 and 6 and hence fall under definition of royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; xiii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking ... into account that Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day the source rule on royalty came into effect to specify

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

services' as appearing in 11 M/s. Shell Information Technology International B.V. ITA No.1245/Mum./2021 article,. 13(4)'(c) of the DTAA read with section 9(1)(vii) of the said Act. While doing so the Tribunal, inter alia, found that the assessee company was an international reinsurance intermediary (broker

M/S. Iqvia Ag (Previously Known As 'Ims Ag', Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1203/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

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. On the facts and in the circumstances ... from doctors, stockist, dealers and other sources i.e. data available in the public domain and none of the clauses of Explanation 2 of section 9(1) (vi) of the Act which defines the term 'Royalty' are satisfied and also does not fall within the definition of 'Royalty' as per Article

DCIT (It) 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Globalcom.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2319/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Amit Khatiwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee from Tata Communications Ltd. (erstwhile VSNL) as 'standby maintenance charges was not in the nature of 'Fees for technical services' under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fundamental fact that the act of maintenance of infrastructure by the assessee ... Network Operation Centre under the Construction and Maintenance Agreement dated 14.12.1995, is itself in the nature of rendering managerial and technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as the assessee is rendering services by way of constantly monitoring the under-sea cable systems? 2. Whether

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

definition of FTS/FIS as per the provisions Page 5 of 45 IT(IT)A Nos. 362 to 369 & 338 to 345/Bang/2020 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per the provisions of the DTAA between India and the respective countries. Aggrieved by the order ... render any other service to the assessee. It was submitted that, consequently in respect of the reimbursements made, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) would not be attracted. 19. It was submitted that, as per section 9(1)(vii), the term 'fees for technical services' means any 'consideration