← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(vii)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)(b)142 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii)(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).

CIT v. Havells India Ltd.
352 ITR 376 · 2013 · High Court
97
citing judgments

For royalty income, especially in the context of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA), the 'source of income' is the determinative factor for taxability, rather than merely the 'source of receipt'.

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.

DCIT v. Welspun Corporation Ltd.
77 Taxmann.com 165 · 2017 · ITAT
69
citing judgments

Subscription fees received by a non-resident for information access do not constitute 'royalty' for the use of copyright under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case also elaborates on the scheme of taxability for non-residents under Section 5(2) of the Act, especially concerning income deemed to accrue or arise in India.

J.K. (Bom.) Limited v. CBDT and Another
118 ITR 312 · 1979 · High Court
50
citing judgments

The case elucidates the meaning of 'management services', detailing its components and considering whether such services qualify as 'technical services' for income tax purposes, particularly in relation to fees for technical services.

Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT
195 ITR 81 · 1992 · Supreme Court
50
citing judgments

Advice, such as that provided by a lawyer or a financial consultancy firm on loan modalities, constitutes 'technical service'. This interpretation is relevant in the context of fees for technical services, especially under tax treaties.

IDS Software Solutions P. Ltd. v. ITO
122 TTJ 410 · 2009 · ITAT
50
citing judgments

An Indian company that exercises control and supervision over a seconded employee and bears the salary cost is an economic employer. Such a company is not liable to withhold tax on the reimbursement of salary to the overseas company, thereby avoiding disallowance under Section 40(a)(i).

Director of Income Tax v. Sheraton International Inc.
178 Taxmann 84 · 2009 · High Court
48
citing judgments

Receipts do not constitute 'fees for technical services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12(4)(b) of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), specifically when interpreting the 'make available' clause.

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

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

services rendered by the assessee company were in the nature of fee for technical services (FTS) covered within the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. She held that as commission payments had been made for promotion of sales, which includes a variety of activities such ... Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held that in order to fall within the second exception provided in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, it was the source of the income and not the source of the receipt that should be situated outside India

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internatonal Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 887/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Cologne, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4691/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internatonal Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2448/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2447/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT(It) 1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3127/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

said that the assessee's case does not fall within any of the exceptions to the deeming provision as laid out in section 9(1)(vii)(b) which provide that:- (i)If the payment is made for the purpose of business carried out by the resident outside India

DCIT(It)-1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3126/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

said that the assessee's case does not fall within any of the exceptions to the deeming provision as laid out in section 9(1)(vii)(b) which provide that:- (i)If the payment is made for the purpose of business carried out by the resident outside India

DCIT(It)-1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3125/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

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

said that the assessee's case does not fall within any of the exceptions to the deeming provision as laid out in section 9(1)(vii)(b) which provide that:- (i)If the payment is made for the purpose of business carried out by the resident outside India, or Alibaba.com

Hal Offshore Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2084/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1)

wherein Hon'ble High Court affirming the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal held that the Explanation 2 has expanded the scope of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) by providing that the services of technical or other personnel would be taxable. It has been repeatedly stated by the assessee that

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 7113/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

these projects are executed. The payments made by the appellant to these non-resident parties are clearly covered by the exception in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and accordingly, no income can be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India on account of these payments made

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 5502/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

these projects are executed. The payments made by the appellant to these non-resident parties are clearly covered by the exception in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and accordingly, no income can be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India on account of these payments made

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

respect, but without slightest hesitation, we humbly come to the conclusion that we are not persuaded by these rulings. 34. Coming to Section 9(1)(vii)(b) this deeming fiction- which is foundational basis for the action of the Assessing Officer, inter alia, provides that the income

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi vs. Nec Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7392/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

amounting to Rs. 9,34,91,383/- by ignoring the fact that the case was not covered by exception carved out by section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Dispute Resolutions Panel-II is legally justified ... doing so the Ld. DRP ignored the fact that the case was not covered by exception carved out by section 9(1) (vii) (b) of the Act. 8. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal filed, after inordinate delay of 1021 days i.e. on 08-12-2017with

ACIT, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 140/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

affairs outside India. Thus, the AO classified the activity rendered by the overseas agents as technical services and invoked the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No 1741 and 1525/Mds/2014 dated 19.05.2016 for Assessment Year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 139/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

affairs outside India. Thus, the AO classified the activity rendered by the overseas agents as technical services and invoked the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No 1741 and 1525/Mds/2014 dated 19.05.2016 for Assessment Year

ACIT, Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 117/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

affairs outside India. Thus, the AO classified the activity rendered by the overseas agents as technical services and invoked the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No 1741 and 1525/Mds/2014 dated 19.05.2016 for Assessment Year

Ethiopian Airlines Group, Ethiopia vs. ACIT, Int. Taxation Circle-1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 2201/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115ASection 133ASection 147Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

Assessee's case is that the services are rendered in Ethiopia and accordingly, its transactions fall under the exception under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The exception states that where the fees are payable in respect of services utilized in a business or profession carried

Ethiopian Airlines Group, Ehiopia vs. ACIT Int. Taxation Circle-1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 2200/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115ASection 133ASection 147Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: 'D' NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

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)

services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vii)(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 Company ... assessee stated that the services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the Company (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source outside India

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)

services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vii)(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 Company ... assessee stated that the services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the Company (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source outside India