← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)(1)29 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(1) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(1)

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

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.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.
125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court
270
citing judgments

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

Judgments citing Section 9(1)(1)

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)

India ie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances

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)

India ie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 3- Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances ... India, i.e., Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited (GSSMPL) constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 3 above, the learned AO has on the facts

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)

India ie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances ... India, i.e., Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited (GSSMPL) constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 3 above, the learned AO has on the facts

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)

India ie. Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 3-Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances ... India, i.e., Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited (GSSMPL) constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 3 above, the learned AO has on the facts

General Reinsurance Corporation, United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 1817/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) General Reinsurance Corporation Acit (International Taxation), 1209, Orange Street Delaware, Vs Circle -2(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 610, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Wilmington, United States, 19801 Usa Bhavan, G Block, Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra (East), [Pan:Aahcg8162B] Mumbai-400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 9(1)

Branch of General Reinsurance AG ('GRAG India Branch') constitutes a business connection in India for the Appellant as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act. General Reinsurance Corporation 3. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 above, the learned AO has, on the facts

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place

ITA 4092/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have

ITA 3178/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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)

holding that Infomedia 18 Pvt Ltd. does not constitute a business connection' of the assessee in India under the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and accordingly, the income of the assessee was not taxable in India as business income

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)

holding that Infomedia 18 Pvt Ltd. does not constitute a business connection' of the assessee in India under the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and accordingly, the income of the assessee was not taxable in India as business income

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)

holding that Infomedia 18 Pvt Ltd. does not constitute a business connection' of the assessee in India under the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and accordingly, the income of the assessee was not taxable in India as business income

Linklaters LLP, London vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle (3)(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Linklaters Llp Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Income Tax (International Llp, Tower 3, 27-32 Floor, One Taxation) - 3(1)(2), International Centre, Mumbai Elphinstone Mill Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (West), Mumbai – 400 013. (Pan: Aabcl5182G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

appellant's income is taxable on net basis. (b). The learned AO held the taxability of income would be governed under section 9(1)(1) of the Act as well as under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act (c). The leamed AD held the income would ... learned AD ought to have appreciated that the income earned by the appellant is covered by the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act 11. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AD ought to have appreciated that in view of the specific provisions of section

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

following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other high courts, I am of the considered view that the provisions of section 9(1)(1) is not applicable to the commission payment outside India in the present case and such income is not liable ... Malhotra ((2006) 284 ITR 564] which, in our considered view, does not take into account the impact of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1)(1) properly. That was a case in which the non-resident commission agent worked for procuring participation by other non-resident entities

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

Tribunal orders for earlier years. First of all the reason as to why there is no business connection in terms of Section 9(1)(1) of the Act is that-  RGA Services performs its activities in an independent manner RGA Services render services not only to the assessee

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)

income for EA which accrues or arises only in Ethiopia in view of Article 7 of the India Ethiopia DTAA read with section 9(1)(1) of the income-tax Act 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 2200 & 2201/Del/2024 5.2 From the submissions made by the assessee

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)

income for EA which accrues or arises only in Ethiopia in view of Article 7 of the India Ethiopia DTAA read with section 9(1)(1) of the income-tax Act 5.2 From the submissions made by the assessee from time to time and also from the hearing

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 4(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4693/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2021-22
For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Tribunal orders for earlier years. First of all the reason as to why there is no business connection in terms of Section 9(1)(1) of the Act is that- • RGA Services performs its activities in an independent manner RGA Services render services not only to the assessee

Schindler China Elevator Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3355/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh, Schindler China Elevator Vs. The Assistant Company Limited Commissioner Of Income C/O Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Tax, Int. Tax, Circle Merchant Chamber, 3Rd 4(2)(1), Room No. 1708, Floor, 41, New Marin 17Th Floor, Air India Lines, Mumbai – 400020 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aascs8166L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

P a g e | 1 Schindler China Elevator Company Ltd. Vs. The ACIT, IT, Circle 4(2)(1

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Authority Compqny, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

erred in concluding that the Appellant has a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(1) of the Act on the basis that the Appellant is earning income from India on a regular and continuous basis 2. Ground 2 The learned

Ahlstrom Fiber Composites (I) P. Ltd., Mundra (Kutch) vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

India, since as per the AO, Pohjola Bank Plc had business connection/ permanent establishment(PE) in India in terms of section 9(1)(1) read with explanation 1(a), explanation 2 and 2nd proviso to the Act, as also, in terms of Article 5 of Double Taxation

Ahlstrom Fiber Composites (I) P. Ltd., Mundra (Kutch) vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 287/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

India, since as per the AO, Pohjola Bank Plc had business connection/ permanent establishment(PE) in India in terms of section 9(1)(1) read with explanation 1(a), explanation 2 and 2nd proviso to the Act, as also, in terms of Article 5 of Double Taxation

Section 9(1)(1) — 29 case laws | BharatTax