“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

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

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

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

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

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

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) 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)

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

Qai India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3999/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 192Section 195Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

confirming the disallowance in spite of the fact that the same is covered under the exception clause to Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act. 5 (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in sending ... facts and in law, in confirming the aforesaid despite the fact that the payment is being covered by the exception to Section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, hence the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) are not applicable on the same. 8 (i) On the facts and circumstances

Qai India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3998/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 192Section 195Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

ACIT Circle 25(1), New Delhi vs. Verizon Communications India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 360/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

cannot amend the provisions of tax treaties. The appellant had stressed that its case is covered by exception given in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act and prayed that the addition made by the AO at Rs. 30,48,02,303/- on account of disallowance

Dialog Axiata Plc, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2643/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 144CSection 147Section 191Section 195Section 5

India using the Indian network. The ld. DR further contended that the assessee's case would not fall under the exception to section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act. The ld. DR further argued that the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court ... amendments brought into section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and that the assessee would be covered by the exception provided in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act. The assessee further relied on various decisions which has reiterated that in the absence of amendment in DTAA, the provision

Nan Lian Ship Management Llc, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD)(Int Tax)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 976/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenan Lian Ship Management Llc V. Jcit (Osd) (Intl. Tax) – 3(3)(1) 303, The Atrium Center Room No. 1630, 16Th Floor Khalid Bin Al Walled Road Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Bur Dubai Po Box No. 82289 Dubai, Uae Nan Lian Ship Management Llc C/O. Nishit M. Gandhi Chambers 2 & 3, Ground Floor Cosmos Trade Place, Khatau Building Alkesh Dinesh Mody Marg Opp. Bombay Stock Exchange Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aagcn0478E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 172Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

payment made being for the use of the ship, the same comes within the meaning of the word "royalty". xxx 106. Section 9(1)(vi)(b) states that income by way of royalty payable by a person who is a resident arising or accruing whether directly or indirectly through ... Clause herein is the use or right to use any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. Thus, read in the context of Section 9(1)(vi)(b) and the purport of deeming an income to accrue or arise in India, the presence of the word 'any' preceding an equipment, clearly points

Nan Lion Ship Management Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1857/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1857/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Acit (Int. Tax) – 3(3)(1), Nan Lian Ship Management 1630, 16Th Floor, Air India Llc Building Nariman Point, C/O- Chamber 2 & 3, Cosmos बिधम/ Mumbai-400 021 Trade Place, Ground Floor, Vs. Khatu Building, Opp-Bse, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcn0478E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi /Dhanlaxmi Iyer, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Das, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.11.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.05.2022, Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 2

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Das

Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

Amee Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

question of withholding tax does not arise. The AO treated the transaction as royalty by holding that as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Act, the income by way of royalty payable by a person who is the resident, except where the royalty is payable

M/S. Bain & Company India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS) (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2845/DEL/2016[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr. DR

assessment years.” 76. Shri Pardiwala argued that explanation 4, that was inserted with retrospective effect, uses the language that is contained in section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Income Tax Act, namely, that the expression “any right, property or information” occurring in section 9(1)(vi)(b) alone