← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(vi)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)(c)12 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (345 ITR 494), cited in 461 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vi)(c)

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.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

DIT v. Mitshubishi Corporation
130 Taxmann.com 276 · 2021 · Supreme Court
70
citing judgments

The Supreme Court's decision in DIT Vs. Mitshubishi Corporation covers the chargeability of interest under section 234B of the Act.

CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.
69 ITR 692 · 1968 · Supreme Court
65
citing judgments

Payments for the use of technical know-how or intellectual property, which grant a right to use rather than an outright transfer of ownership, are deductible revenue expenditures as they do not create an enduring benefit, especially in fields with rapid technological obsolescence.

156-157. (c) N.V. Philips v. Commissioner of Income Tax
172 ITR 521 · 1988 · High Court
46
citing judgments

The interpretation of the term 'royalty' as defined in tax treaties is not influenced by India's subsequent changes in position to the OECD Commentary or by executive actions. A treaty between sovereign states cannot be unilaterally amended by domestic law or executive policy without incorporating such changes into the treaty itself.

CIT v. Wavin (India) Ltd.
236 ITR 314 · 1996 · Supreme Court
19
citing judgments

Payments made for the limited right to use technical information or know-how, where there is no sale of such information, are allowable as revenue deductions.

John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. v. DDIT in ITA Nos.905 to 908/Pun/
102 Taxmann.com 267 · 2019 · Reported
14
citing judgments

The amendment of the Income Tax Act cannot unilaterally alter the definition of Royalty under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) if the treaty itself has not been amended.

Edenred Pte. Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International
118 Taxmann.com 2 · 2020 · Reported
14
citing judgments

The case is authority for the proposition that where a tax treaty provides for a more beneficial treatment than the Income Tax Act, the treaty provisions will prevail, provided certain conditions under section 90(2) are met.

Judgments citing Section 9(1)(vi)(c)

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2087/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

manufacture outside of India of subscriber units and infrastructure equipment for sale into India is not liable to tax in India under section 9 (1)(vi)(c ) of the Act. The revenue had preferred appeals against the said Tribunal orders before the Honorable High Court and they are pending ... have PEs in India. While treating the royalty income received from foreign OEMs as taxable in India, the Assessing Officer has applied section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. On a careful perusal of the impugned assessment order, it becomes very much clear that except relying upon the assessment

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2086/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

manufacture outside of India of subscriber units and infrastructure equipment for sale into India is not liable to tax in India under section 9 (1)(vi)(c ) of the Act. The revenue had preferred appeals against the said Tribunal orders before the Honorable High Court and they are pending ... have PEs in India. While treating the royalty income received from foreign OEMs as taxable in India, the Assessing Officer has applied section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. On a careful perusal of the impugned assessment order, it becomes very much clear that except relying upon the assessment

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, Civic Centre Minto Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3742/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshqualcomm Incorporated, Vs. Dcit, 5775, Morehouse Drive, Circle-3(1), San Diego, California, International Taxation, Usa, 92121, Usa New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacq1484H Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv Ms. Jasmin Amalsadavala, Adv Shri Zoheb Balwani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, Cit Dr Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

have PEs in India. While treating the royalty income received from foreign OEMs as taxable in India, the Assessing Officer has applied section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. On a careful perusal of the impugned assessment order, it becomes very much clear that except relying upon the assessment ... have not earned any income from a source in India. Therefore, the royalty income cannot be taxable under the first limb of section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Even, in the second order passed for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2005-06, the Tribunal has agreed with

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2557/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellant from the non-resident licensees from sale of licensed products under the Patent Licensing Agreement as per provisions of section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act and Article 12(7) of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-US tax treaty). 4 4. The Ld. AO erred ... India without appreciating the fact that if the user was said to be the end user in India, then the charge under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act should fail and the royalty earned by QCOM should not be taxable in India. 9. The Ld. AO erred

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2556/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellant from the non-resident licensees from sale of licensed products under the Patent Licensing Agreement as per provisions of section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act and Article 12(7) of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-US tax treaty). 4 4. The Ld. AO erred ... India without appreciating the fact that if the user was said to be the end user in India, then the charge under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act should fail and the royalty earned by QCOM should not be taxable in India. 9. The Ld. AO erred

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2432/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2017-18]

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

Appellant from the non-resident licensees from sale of licensed products under the Patent Licensing Agreement as per provisions of section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act and Article 12(7) of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-US tax treaty). 4. The Ld. AO erred in applying ... India without appreciating the fact that if the user was said to be the end user in India, then the charge under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act should fail and the royalty earned by QCOM should not be taxable in India. 9. The Ld. AO erred

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Maharashtra vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle 2(1)(1)-Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1717/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe, &
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Assessing Officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee and proposed to assess Rs.38,05,85,665/- as royalty under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act and Article 12(8) of the tax treaty observing as under:- “7. The assessee's reply has been perused

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

OEMs doing business in India by selling their CDMA products, such as, handsets and other equipments is taxable as royalty income under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Though, the assessee tried to impress upon the Assessing Officer that neither of the limbs of section 9(1)(vi ... India, is sourced from India. Therefore, the royalty paid by OEMs to the assessee is taxable as royalty income both under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act as well as Article 12(7) of India-USA DTAA. Accordingly, he brought the 7 ITA Nos. 7894/Del/2017 & 7559/Del/2018

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7894/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

OEMs doing business in India by selling their CDMA products, such as, handsets and other equipments is taxable as royalty income under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Though, the assessee tried to impress upon the Assessing Officer that neither of the limbs of section 9(1)(vi ... India, is sourced from India. Therefore, the royalty paid by OEMs to the assessee is taxable as royalty income both under section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act as well as Article 12(7) of India-USA DTAA. Accordingly, he brought the 7 ITA Nos. 7894/Del/2017 & 7559/Del/2018

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

hold that income arose in India in terms of Section 5 of the Act as the CIT(A) only referred to Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Section 9 of the Act only deals with income which is „deemed to accrue or arise‟ in India and, therefore, even ... royalty‟ in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12(3) of the DTAA. Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act provides that income by way of royalty payable by a person who is a non-resident shall be deemed

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

hold that income arose in India in terms of Section 5 of the Act as the CIT(A) only referred to Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Section 9 of the Act only deals with income which is „deemed to accrue or arise‟ in India and, therefore, even ... royalty‟ in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12(3) of the DTAA. Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act provides that income by way of royalty payable by a person who is a non-resident shall be deemed

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

hold that income arose in India in terms of Section 5 of the Act as the CIT(A) only referred to Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Section 9 of the Act only deals with income which is „deemed to accrue or arise‟ in India and, therefore, even ... royalty‟ in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12(3) of the DTAA. Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act provides that income by way of royalty payable by a person who is a non-resident shall be deemed