← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(vi)(b)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(vi)(b) is CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320), cited in 259 judgments on BharatTax.

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

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO
361 ITR 575 · 2014 · High Court
156
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment or copyrighted articles constitute royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, necessitating TDS deduction under section 195 and attracting disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-compliance.

CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.
142 ITR 493 · 1983 · High Court
95
citing judgments

Pure reimbursement of expenditure does not constitute income in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services, therefore eliminating the obligation to deduct tax at source.

Director of Income-tax v. New Skies Satellite
140 TTJ 195 · 2011 · ITAT
37
citing judgments

Royalty income does not arise if the payer merely receives a service without control or possession of the equipment used to provide that service. The right to use equipment implies the payee has control and can employ the equipment for their own purposes.

Dalmia v. CIT
106 ITR 895 · 1977 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments

Management services involve the act of managing by direction, regulation, or superintendence, essentially controlling, directing, or administering a business.

307 ITR 59 (AAR), ISHIKAWAJIMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. v. DIT
124 STC 426 · 2001 · High Court
23
citing judgments

The mere presence of a company's operations across continents does not automatically imply that the process occurred in India. Income received by non-residents from payments made by Indian telecast operators is not considered royalty income under Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) if the income generated in India has already been taxed in India.

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)
152 Taxmann.com 575 · 2023 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Payments received from Indian customers cannot be taxed in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act if they are not characterized as royalty under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Amendments to the Act cannot be incorporated when construing the scope of 'royalty' in a DTAA.

(para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi
156 TTJ 139 · 2013 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Payments for sponsorship rights, such as title sponsorship or being an "Official Partner" of an event, are not considered royalty income for the use of trademarks or brand names under Section 9(1)(vi). Consequently, withholding tax obligations under Section 195 may not apply to such payments.

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs 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. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs 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 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
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 outside India as the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 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 1205/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 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 1194/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 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 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

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan: Aaaca 3012H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Dated 13.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Order Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.03.2024 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant :-2-:

Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(2), 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

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, 'Wabag House” No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Chennai. [Pan: Aabcv 0225G] आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2256, 2257 & 2258/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Income Tax, 'Wabag House” Central Circle 3(2) No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Chennai. S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 2

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

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

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, 'Wabag House” No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G] Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2256, 2257 & 2258/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Income Tax, 'Wabag House” Central Circle 3(2) No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Chennai. S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 2

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

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 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