← 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)

Denso International Asia Co., Ltd., Thailand vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 402/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.402/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Denso International Asia Co. Ltd., 888 Moo 1, Bangna-Trad Road Km 27 5, Bangbo Subdistrict, Samutprakarn Province, Thailand, 10560 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadcd-4652-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Interantional Taxation 1(2)(2), Civic Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Vishal Kalra, Saumyendra Tomar, Advocates & Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 28.11.2024, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. Facts Of The Case In Brief As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is A Tax Resident Of Thailand. The Assessee Acts As Regional Service Centre Of The Denso

For Appellant: S/Shri Vishal Kalra, Saumyendra TomarFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

present appeal has assailed the action of AO in taxing receipts amounting to Rs.14,91,92,253/- as FTS under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and invoking the provisions of Article 22(3) of India-Thailand DTAA. He pointed that similar issue arose in assessee ... technology trend; 18. Now Section 9 of the Act enumerates certain incomes to be deemed to accrue or arise in India and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act provides under what conditions FTS income shall be considered to accrue or arise in India. Explanation 2 to Section 9(1

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards cost allocation for software license charges as Royalty' under provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA 8. Erred in not appreciating that the payments received were ... India and UK: and not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of the term in Explanation 2 to Clause (vi) of Section 9(1) of the Act and under Article 13 of DTAA. While we rule on Que. No. (iii) & (iv), Based on answer