← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(viii)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)(viii)12 judgments

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India. Section 9(1)(viii) -Sum of Money: Income arising outside India, being any sum of money referred to in Section 2(24) (xvila), paid on or after

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India. Section 9(1)(viii) -Sum of Money: Income arising outside India, being any sum of money referred to in Section 2(24) (xvila), paid on or after

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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)

1 ITA No. 2084/Del/2023 Hal Offshore Ltd. vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW

JANET CHRISTINE DEPENNING,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1319/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 & 1323/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 Janet Christine Depenning, The Income Tax Officer, 120, Velachery Main Road, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Guindy,Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aebpd 2408L]

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A LMFor Respondent: Smt. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(1)(viii)

held that the remittances made by the assessee to the foreign attorneys is fee for technical services as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(viii) of the Act and hence, income deemed to be accrued in India and therefore, the assessee ought to have deducted ... order passed u/s. 201/201(1A), has held the payment as fee for technical services as per Explanation-2 to Section 9(1)(viii) of the Act. Though, the AO in the order has observed that if the relevant DTAA provides the clause of independent personal services which includes legal services

TRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1680/CHNY/2024[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(viii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

TRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1676/CHNY/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(viii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

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

taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) in which the Hon’ble Delhi High Court took the view that second part of exclusion contemplated vide section 9(1)(viii)(b) of the Act would be attracted. That was the case in which the assessee was an Indian resident who was engaged in wet leasing

VODAFONE IDEA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6295/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

taxmann.com 223 (Del Trio.) - On the issue ‘Whether payment of IUC by assesses to FTOs are taxable as Fees for Technical Services under section 9(1)(viii)", it has been held that there is no human intervention at the time of traffic of calls and the payment in question cannot

DY. CIT (TDS)-2 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6242/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

taxmann.com 223 (Del Trio.) - On the issue ‘Whether payment of IUC by assesses to FTOs are taxable as Fees for Technical Services under section 9(1)(viii)", it has been held that there is no human intervention at the time of traffic of calls and the payment in question cannot

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)

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, no tax should be deducted under section 195 of the Act hence, no disallowance can be made

Section 9(1)(viii) — 12 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax