← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(vi)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)(b)29 judgments

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

licensing of would be subject to Private Limited Patents tax in India under Xiaomi Technology India 8,07,19,63,310 Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of Private Limited the Act. Oppo Mobiles India Private 4 8,64,17,92,607 Limited 5 Reliance Retail Limited

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

licensing of would be subject to Private Limited Patents tax in India under Xiaomi Technology India 8,07,19,63,310 Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of Private Limited the Act. Oppo Mobiles India Private 4 8,64,17,92,607 Limited 5 Reliance Retail Limited

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी टी

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी टी

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1263/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी टी

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी टी

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source - 29 - ITA Nos.1193

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1206/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी टी

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1205/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी टी

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1194/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी टी

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

below: - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source - 29 - ITA Nos.1193

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, INTL, TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) , CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU , BENGALURU vs. TELEKOM MALAYSIA BEHARD, MALAYSIA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2432/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Manju Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9

India. Further, the learned AO also held that the payments made to the assessee are taxable as royalty- in India both under section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act and Article 12 of the India Malaysia Tax Treaty. Accordingly, the AO determined a final demand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI vs. MS VA TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 2256/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

nprojects abroad has to be considered as fees paid for services\nutilized in the business of the assessee outside India. Therefore,\nclearly Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act applied and the income\nearned by such non residents cannot be deemed to accrue or\narising in India. Therefore, assessee

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2248/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

nprojects abroad has to be considered as fees paid for services\nutilized in the business of the assessee outside India. Therefore,\nclearly Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act applied and the income\nearned by such non residents cannot be deemed to accrue or\narising in India. Therefore, assessee

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2247/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, IRS, JCIT

source whatsoever. As per the assessee, they were working for its business carried on in Nigeria and hence, by virtue of Section 9(1) (vi)(b) of the Act, the fees payable to such nonresidents could not be considered as income accruing or arising to them in India. We find ... would directly apply to the said non-resident consultants and Chennai whether the income accrue to them in India or abroad, as section 9(1)(vi)(b) is a deeming provision." [Emphasis supplied] 17. It is clear from the above that the payments made by the assessee to non-resident

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2246/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, IRS, JCIT

source whatsoever. As per the assessee, they were working for its business carried on in Nigeria and hence, by virtue of Section 9(1) (vi)(b) of the Act, the fees payable to such nonresidents could not be considered as income accruing or arising to them in India. We find ... would directly apply to the said non-resident consultants and Chennai whether the income accrue to them in India or abroad, as section 9(1)(vi)(b) is a deeming provision." [Emphasis supplied] 17. It is clear from the above that the payments made by the assessee to non-resident

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)

licensing of Private Limited would be subject to Patents Xiaomi Technology India tax in India under 8,07,19,63,310 Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of Private Limited the Act. Oppo Mobiles India Private 4 8,64,17,92,607 Limited 5 Reliance Retail Limited

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2