← 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)

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue's are dismissed

ITA 164/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalι.Τ.Α. No. 168/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 163/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 164/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 165/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2019-20) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 166/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 167/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2021-22) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Weatherford Oil Tools M.E Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Limited. 6Th Floor, Vaman Centre, Makwana Road, J. B. Nagar, Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan: Aaacw1524G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Sh. Amit Arora, Adv, Sh. Shivamyadav, Adv & Ms. Somya Singh, Adv Revenue By Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Cit(A)-Noida, 2 ('Ld. Cit(A)' For Short), Delhi Dated 31/07/2024 For The Assessment Years2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. 2. All The Above Appeals Are Having Identical Issues To Be Decided, Therefore, The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard Together & Decided In This Common Order. 2

Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

services mentioned therein indicate any mining like activity; therefore, the receipts generated from such contracts are Royalty/FTS covered under Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vi)/9(1)(vii) of the Act, which reads as under:- Sec. 9(1)(vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 "(vii) Income ... Therefore, now in the current scenario if the income of the assessee is Royalty or FTS, then the same would be taxed under Section 9(1)(vi)/ (vii) read with Section 115A or 44DA, as the case may be." What transpires from the above referred judgment is that

Synacor Inc., Hamburg vs. ACIT, Int.Tax. Circle- 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1802/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1802/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2018-19) Synacor Inc. 485, Sunset Drive, Office #114, Hamburg, Ny 14075 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaxcs-8643-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon & Ms. Seetal Kandpal, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 16/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 15.01.2025, Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri Deepak Chopra, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal, However, The Effective Grounds Assailing The Addition By Treating Sale Of Software Licenses As Fee For Technical Services (Fts) Are Ground No. 8, 10 & 16 Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon &For Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT(DR)
Section 147

Appellant for provision of software licences and rendition of maintenance and support services could not be characterised as FIS, under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United States of America (India