← All Phrases

“Section 9(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(2)130 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 9(2) is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169), cited in 658 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 9(2)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

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).

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT
251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court
253
citing judgments

Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT
30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT
201
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd.
212 Taxmann 454 · 2013 · High Court
177
citing judgments

Payments for computer software are treated as royalty income under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, particularly concerning the expanded definition provided by Explanation 2 and Explanation 4.

Judgments citing Section 9(2)

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

technical services as defined by Explanation-2 below section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and furthermore, after considering the explanation inserted below section 9(2), the Tribunal had held in the case of M/s Giesecke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT (supra), that the payment for procuring of export

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Emco Exports, Agra

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 415/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

this twin tests has to be satisfied for section 195 is to be attracted. We find that the Legislation introduced the Explanation to section 9(2) of the Act, after this judgment, with retrospective effect from 1-6-1976 in the Finance Act, 2007. Despite this introduction of Explanation ... section 9(2) of the Act, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 321 ITR 31 held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited (supra) still holds good despite

Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1403/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

reference to 25 M/s Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. DIT (Int. Taxation)-2(2) the issue that the amounts are not taxable under section 9(2)(vi) and Article 12(3) of the DTAA. He submitted that the assessee has objection with reference to the findings

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Netherlands vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinmarsat Solutions B. V., Vs. Acit, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, International Taxation, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Circle-2(1)(1), Delhi (West), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci9974L Assessee By : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

paras 13, 22 and 28 of its order, the Hon ‟ble High Court has approved the insertion of Explanation below section 9(2) inserted by the Finance Act 2007, thereby implying that the explanations inserted by FA 2007 could be read into modern DTAAs; iv) Mumbai Tribunal in the case

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Haridwar

ITA 46/DDN/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

1 The DCIT Vs. M/s Sharda Exports IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘DEHRADUN/’ NEW DELHI BEFORE

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)

source outside India. In this context, one need to appreciate that the place of rendition of services becomes irrelevant vide explanation below section 9(2) of the Act inserted in Finance Act 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 For the sake of brevity, the said explanation is reproduced as under ... this context, one need to appreciate that the place of rendition of services becomes irrelevant vide explanation below section 9(2) of the Act inserted in Finance Act 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976. For the sake of brevity, the said explanation is reproduced as under: Explanation. For the removal

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

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5414/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. DIT (2007) 288 ITR 408 will be of no help to the assessee due to introduction of explanation under section 9(2) of the Act, which makes it clear that the income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under ... falls within the definition of FTS, both under the domestic law as well as treaty provision. He submitted, as per the Explanation under section 9(2) of the Act, FTS is taxable in India, irrespective of the fact, whether the recipient is a non- resident or the services are rendered

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)

have been taken.” (emphasis supplied) 13. On examination of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with Explanation to Section 9(2) which was substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, we note that prior to the amendment in order to attract the rigors of Section ... however find that at the time when the matter was heard by the Tribunal, amendment to Section 9(2) of the Act, was already in force. Taking judicial note of the amendment which, widened the scope of TDS provisions qua the payments made to foreign attorneys, the Tribunal had observed

Hcl Technologies Norway As, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2300/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

case and submission of the assessee. We have perused the abovementioned case laws. We would like to refer to Explanation below section 9(2) which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. It reads as under: "Explanation. -For the removal of doubts

Hcl Australia Services Pty Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2299/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

case and submission of the assessee. We have perused the abovementioned case laws. We would like to refer to Explanation below section 9(2) which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. It reads as under: "Explanation. -For the removal of doubts

Hcl Singapore Pte. Ltd (Successor to Axon Solutions Singapore Pte Limited), Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2298/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

case and submission of the assessee. We have perused the abovementioned case laws. We would like to refer to Explanation below section 9(2) which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. It reads as under: "Explanation. -For the removal of doubts

M/S. Spel Semiconductor Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 105/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.105/Chny/2020 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Spel Semiconductor Limited Ito बनाम/ #5, Cmda Industries Estate Corporate Ward -6(2) Vs. Chennai-603 209. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-8519-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta (Jcit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

M/S. Steer America Inc., United States vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle -1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 833/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R
Section 144CSection 147Section 148

taxmann.com 111 (Delhi - Trib.), (FEBRUARY 7, 2018) for the Assessment year 2009-10 wherein held that in view of Explanation inserted below section 9(2) by Finance Act, 2010, even if services are rendered outside India, same may fall under fee for technical services. Assessee-company had paid sales commission

M/S. Steer America Inc., United States vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle -1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 832/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R
Section 144CSection 147Section 148

taxmann.com 111 (Delhi - Trib.), (FEBRUARY 7, 2018) for the Assessment year 2009-10 wherein held that in view of Explanation inserted below section 9(2) by Finance Act, 2010, even if services are rendered outside India, same may fall under fee for technical services. Assessee-company had paid sales commission

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

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

ITA 518/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

disallowance can be made in view of the legal position as it stood at that point. The ld.counsel stated that until amendment of Section 9(2) of the Act by inserting an explanation thereto, the legal position as laid down by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... India, but should also be rendered in India or should have such a live link with India. Thereafter, an Explanation was inserted to Section 9(2) of the Act,vide Finance Act, 2007, to clarify that where the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India under clauses

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

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

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

disallowance can be made in view of the legal position as it stood at that point. The ld.counsel stated that until amendment of Section 9(2) of the Act by inserting an explanation thereto, the legal position as laid down by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... India, but should also be rendered in India or should have such a live link with India. Thereafter, an Explanation was inserted to Section 9(2) of the Act,vide Finance Act, 2007, to clarify that where the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India under clauses

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

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

ITA 506/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

disallowance can be made in view of the legal position as it stood at that point. The ld.counsel stated that until amendment of Section 9(2) of the Act by inserting an explanation thereto, the legal position as laid down by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... India, but should also be rendered in India or should have such a live link with India. Thereafter, an Explanation was inserted to Section 9(2) of the Act,vide Finance Act, 2007, to clarify that where the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India under clauses

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

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

ITA 505/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

disallowance can be made in view of the legal position as it stood at that point. The ld.counsel stated that until amendment of Section 9(2) of the Act by inserting an explanation thereto, the legal position as laid down by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... India, but should also be rendered in India or should have such a live link with India. Thereafter, an Explanation was inserted to Section 9(2) of the Act,vide Finance Act, 2007, to clarify that where the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India under clauses

M/S Creations by Shanagar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-

ITA 3564/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

source was not necessary. The explanation furnished by assessee was not accepted by AO, who held that as per Explanation to section 9(2) of Finance Act, 2007, the income of non-resident shall be deemed to accrue in India and shall be included in total income whether