“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

ACIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Red Ice Production Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8061/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

treated the payment of Rs. 1,58,85,633/- made outside India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The submissions of the assessee are incorporated in para 4.1 of the appellate order

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)

brought to tax. The AO relied on the retrospective amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2007 including an Explanation to section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, thereby invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act disallowed the above amount and added back

Asst. Comm. of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Exxon Mobile Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400022

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross-

ITA 1283/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Exxon Mobile Company Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Aayakar Road No. 8, Sion (East), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 113/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1283/Mum/2022) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Exxon Mobile Company Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, Road Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 8, Sion (East), 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Mumbai-400020. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. A/W Mr. Dhiraj Jain Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

Section 195Section 40

income from source outside India and therefore covered by the exception to section India and therefore covered by t he exception to section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and therefore not chargeable to tax. )(b) of the Act and therefore not chargeable to tax. )(b

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Shridharan &For Respondent: Shri C T Mathew, DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

expenditure relates to services utilized in business carried out by the assessee outside India and thereby it falls into the exclusion under Section 9(1) (vii) (b) of the Act from the definition of income of fees for technical services. He submitted that assessee export goods manufactured ... outside India of making or earning income from source outside India. Therefore, according him these payments falls in the exclusion clause of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act not liable for taxation in India. Therefore, no tax is required to be deducted at source. To further support

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

Deputy CIT reported in (2009) 318 ITR 237, wherein Hon’ble Court, was considering taxability of income of a nonresident falling under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, having regards to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ishikwajima reported ... transfer of any technical plan or technical design. We are therefore of the opinion that, the revenue is incorrect in view of Section 9(1)(vii) (b) of the Act and also in view of DTAA between India and UK. We, therefore, hold that, the disallowance under Section

M/S Irunway India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Irunway India Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. Regus Business Center, Office Circle – 3(1)(1), No.1015, Bengaluru. 10Th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 003. Pan : Aabci 5613 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37Section 40

India u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Thus, the outsourcing charges ought to fall under the exclusions provided in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the underlying income would not be deemed to accrue or arise in India and as a result of which there Page ... software and doing so was equivalent to making available technology to the assessee. On the applicability of the exclusion clause in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, learned DR submitted that the assessee’s source of income is in India and not USA. The fact that the assessee

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate

Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

erred in not recognizing that payments received by the Appellant fell within the purview of the exclusionary clause of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and were not, therefore, chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Act.  The learned ... erred in not recognizing that payments received by the appellant fell within the purview of the exclusionary clause of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and were not, therefore, chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Act. The Ld.AO and Hon'ble DRP has erred

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 634/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

afore-stated relevant clauses of the agreement, the DRP formed a belief that service provided by the assessee are squarely covered under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act read with Explanation below section 9(2) of the Act introduced by the Finance Act 2010 with w.r.e

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5815/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1008/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1731/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

M/S. Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 458/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 429/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

Ge Energy Management Services Inc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5544/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 3895/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

intended to cover the taxability of the export commission invoking the provisions of section 9(1)(i) and Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. ACIT vs. M/s Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd. 5.4 As regards the taxability under section 9(1)(i) of the Income ... 9(1)(i) and accordingly export commission paid by the assesse is not chargeable to tax in India. 5.5 Regarding taxability under section 9(1)(vii)(b) read with Explanation-2 the AO in Pg. 7 Para 4.7 has alleged that the payments made by the assessee

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 3894/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

M/S. Mccann Erickson (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Mccann Erickson (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, 204-2016, Tolstoy Marg, Range-6(1), New Delhi-110001. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaact0835D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sanjesh Kumar Jawarani, Ca Respondent By Sh. Farhat Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 02.07.2021

Section 147Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(1)(viii)

treatment of Global Account Coordination Cost of Rs.57,38,948/- as per provisions of section 195 read with explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. He contended that so far as the provision of section 9(1)(viii) and relevant Articles of DTAA is concerned

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2012[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

said case had analyzed the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii)(c) of the Act, whereas for the present purpose it is Section 9(1)(vii)(b), which will be applicable, because the payer in the present case AAI is a resident The wordings of Section 9(1)(vii)(b

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5162/DEL/2012[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

M/S. Havells India Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH