“Section 9(1)(v)”

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

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

India for services rendered outside India [Tax deductible u/s. 192] Section 9(1)(iv)- Dividend paid by an Indian company outside India Section 9(1)(v) -Interest Income by way of interest payable by a Resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India except if amount used

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

nature of 'receipt from self.’ Ld. Assessing Officer, in the draft assessment order dated 26.12.2017, referred to the provisions of section 9(1)(v)(c) of the Act and held that the said section provides for a source rule for taxation and that it does not make any distinction about ... income in the hands of the Head Office/overseas branches of assessee and thus, not chargeable to tax. Further, while Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(v) of the Act states that interest paid by a PE in India to the head office or any other PE shall be chargeable

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited copyright itself. Therefore the Id AR argued that the provisions of section 9(1)(v) is not applicable as has been held by the AO. Our attention in this regard was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... such distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use of or right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the Income-tax Act (section 9(1)(v), along with explanations 2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION)_4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself. Therefore the ld AR argued that the provisions of section 9(1)(v) is not applicable as has been held by the AO. Our attention in this regard was drawn to the decision ... such distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use of or right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the Income-tax Act (section 9(1)(v), along with explanations 2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITEDIUM,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself. Therefore the ld AR argued that the provisions of section 9(1)(v) is not applicable as has been held by the AO. Our attention in this regard was drawn to the decision ... such distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use of or right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the Income-tax Act (section 9(1)(v), along with explanations 2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of copyright itself. Therefore the ld AR argued that the provisions of section 9(1)(v) is not applicable as has been held by the AO. Our attention in this regard was drawn to the decision ... such distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use of or right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the Income-tax Act (section 9(1)(v), along with explanations 2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application

M/S. SHELL INTERATIONAL PETROLEUM CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is\nnot in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are\nallowed and Ground No

towards use of copyrighted\nitem and not for the use of copyright itself. Therefore the ld AR argued that the\nprovisions of section 9(1)(v) is not applicable as has been held by the AO. Our\nattention in this regard was drawn to the decision ... such distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use\nof or right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the\nIncome-tax Act (section 9(1)(v), along with explanations 2 and 4\nthereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the\nassessees, have no application

M/S SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (IT)- 4 (2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is\nnot in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are\nallowed and Ground No

towards use of copyrighted\nitem and not for the use of copyright itself. Therefore the ld AR argued that the\nprovisions of section 9(1)(v) is not applicable as has been held by the AO. Our\nattention in this regard was drawn to the decision ... such distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use\nof or right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the\nIncome-tax Act (section 9(1)(v), along with explanations 2 and 4\nthereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the\nassessees, have no application

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

this regard submitted that the issue needs to be examined in the light of the amendment made to section 9(1)(v) by way of explanation. 35. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the issue of interest paid by Indian Branch

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

this regard submitted that the issue needs to be examined in the light of the amendment made to section 9(1)(v) by way of explanation. 35. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the issue of interest paid by Indian Branch

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE JT CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONA), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

nThe ld. DR in this regard submitted that the issue needs to be examined in\nthe light of the amendment made to section 9(1)(v) by way of explanation.\n35.\nWe heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the\nissue of interest paid

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

nThe ld. DR in this regard submitted that the issue needs to be examined in\nthe light of the amendment made to section 9(1)(v) by way of explanation.\n35.\nWe heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the\nissue of interest paid