“business connection”

International TaxSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(i)833 judgments

VCOMMISSION MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 26(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4071/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16 V Commission Media Private Acit, Circle-26(1), Room No.195A, 1St Floor, Limited, F-342, Regus Level 4, Rectangle Vs C.R Building, One D4, Saket, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110017 Pan-Aaecv0198B Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Pulkit Saini, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(a)

used for more than 30 days was held to be allowable. It is not the case of the Revenue that the impugned assets lack business connection. In respectful compliance to the impugned decisions, we set-aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the ld. AO to allow

OWENS CORNING (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT (INT TAX) CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5161/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2023-24 Owens Corning (Singapore) Deputy Commissioner Of Pte Ltd., Income Tax (International Tax), C/O. Owens Corning (India) Vs. Circle-3(2)(2), Pvt. Limited, 6Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Bandra Kurla Complex, Powai, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400076. Pan : Aabco5666L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Bhalla For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 10-07-2025, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, ("Ld.Drp"), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

assessee claims that it has neither any Permanent Establishment in India as per Article 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA nor any business connection in India. The AO observed that prima facie, the income was in nature of fees for technical services and the assessee was asked to show cause

DCIT(IT)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN MADHAVACHARI RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

ITA 3814/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 254Section 9(1)(vii)

companies. In fact, if\nat all, this payment could have be taxed in the hands of these two companies\nif they have any business connection in India or source of income has accrued\nand arisen in India; and here in this year in the hands of M/s. Thurles\nInternational ... hands of the assessee on the ground that it\nis a business income was also rejected, as there is no Permanent\nEstablishment or a business connection of the assessee in India for\nrendering these consultancy services.\n(h) It was held that the Revenue has not been able to bring

SUPERHOUSE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, DELHI, 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

section 9 of the Income Tax Act which held that all income accruing or arisen whether directly or through or from any business connection in India would be income that was deemed to be accrue or rise in India and because the wholly owned subsidiaries had a “business connection” with ... taxman 234 and held that, where there was nothing on record to show that the overseas agent had any business connection as contemplated under Explanation 2 to section 9 of the Act and no income had accrued to the overseas agent from any property in India, nor had any income

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

distinguished the factual matrix from the decisions relied upon by the AO and emphasized that none of the agents had any business connection, fixed place, or permanent establishment in India. 103. We have gone through the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in detail. It was noted that ... ordinate Bench’s conclusion in the earlier year was unambiguous: where commission agents operate entirely outside India and do not have a PE or business connection in India, commission paid to them for facilitating export sales is not taxable in India. Hence, there is no requirement to deduct tax under

ASHOK NARAYAN SATAV,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD 12(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 3355/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3355/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Narayan Satav, V The Income Tax Near Datta Mandir, Wadjai, S Officer, Ward-12(3), Wagholi, Haveli, Pune. Pune – 412207. Pan: Aypps9425G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak S Sasar Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 29.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Has Wrongly Confirmed The Addition Made By

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C

assessee has not produced any Books of accounts, Cash Book, Ledger copy of Account of above named concern and also failed to establish any business connection with the said person. Keeping in view the above facts the addition of Rs.. 8.00 Lakhs is hereby made as deemed income

BOOKING.COM B.V.,THE NETHERLANDS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151

India as online booking system (Application Programming Interface Platform ('APP'), a software system) is spread in India and the Assessee has a Business Connection in India, without providing any legal or factual basis for the same. 6. On the facts and in circumstances of the case ... Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the significant economic presence of a non- resident in India is deemed to constitute "business connection" in India. SEP was defined to mean transaction in respect of any goods, services or property carried out by a non-resident with any person in India, including

YOUCLOUD DMCC,DUBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes\nonly

ITA 1220/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(d)Section 201(1)

included in the total\nincome of the non-resident, whether or not (i) the non-resident has a residence\nor place of business or business connections in India (ii) the non-resident has\nrendered services in India. One of the main bone of contention of the assessee\nis that

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 887/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

erred in concluding that the\nAppellant's wholly owned subsidiary in India i.e. Gen Re Support Services\nMumbai Private Limited ('GSSMPL') constitutes a business connection in India as\nper the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act.\n2. The learned AO has on the facts and circumstances ... erred in concluding that the Appellant's wholly owned\nsubsidiary in India, i.e., Gen Re Support Services Mumbai Private Limited\n(GSSMPL) constitutes a business connection in India as per the provisions of\nsection 9(1)(1) of the Act.\n5. Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 3 above

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

Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

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

Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2447/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 565/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 80J

Officer has recorded that from the details submitted by the assessee and the explanation given by him, it was observed that assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment had been made and also there was business income to the assessee from the same. Therefore, interest expense ... agrees that the Assessing Officer has recorded from the details submitted by respondent and the explanation given by respondent that the assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment has been made and also there was a business income to the assessee from the same. He notes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. TECHNO TREXIM INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 582/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 37

such asset out of borrowed\ncapital. The AO therefore stated that the interest claimed as business\nexpenses are not allowable as there is no business connection and the\nborrowed funds have been utilized for non-business purpose. The AO\nreiterated that there is planned activity by the assessee to reduce

TECHNO TREXIM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 37

SAI PRAGATHI ESTATES & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1627/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1627/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Sai Pragathi Estates & The Income Tax Officer- Constructions Pvt. [Int.Taxn]-1, Hyderabad Vs. Limited, Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004. Pin – 500 029. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aadcs4150P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri A Harish, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri A Harish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 161Section 163Section 163(1)(c)Section 163(1)(e)

Appeals) ought to have noted that to hold the assessee as an Agent U's 163 of the Act. failed to establish "Business Connection parameters required under taw, and therefore the appellant cannot be held as the agent of NRI. 11. Without Prejudice to the above the Ld CTT (Appeals ... have further Noted a Single & Solitary transaction of sale of Capital Asset by the appellant under development agreement, does not constitute under law "Business connection" Us 163 of the Act and the CIT (Appeals) therefore erred in holding the Appellant as the Agent of NRI under Law. 4 ITA.No.1627/Hyd

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SAHYADRI AGENCIES LIMITED, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE ARIKANNIYUR

Accordingly Ground no.1 raised by the revenue stands\ndismissed

ITA 4257/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Ld.DR submitted that\nthe Ld.CIT(A) completely ignored these facts.\n4.2. The Ld.DR further submitted that, the assessee was neither\nhaving any business connection with JLL, nor is a subsidiary or\nholding company of JLL, which could justify that the investment\nmade in JLL for the purpose of business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. SHRISANJAY KAUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 31/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur D-59, Kamla Nagar, Agra-282005 Pan: Aaupa2845H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Kanpur Dated 14.11.2022 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 153A R.W.S. 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A)-Iv, Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- Made U/S 69A By The Ao Ignoring The Fact That Such Addition Was Made By The Ao On The Basis Of Entries Found On These Loose Papers Seized From The Possession Of Such A Person Who Was Having Business Relations With All Persons Named Therein Including Assessee. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A)-Iv, Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- Made U/S 69A By Accepting The Denial By The Person From Whose Possession It Was Recovered & The Assessee Regarding The Relation Of Its Entries With Them Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Totality. 3. That The Order Of The Cit(A) Being Erroneous In Law & Facts Be Set Aside & Order Of The A.O. Be Restored. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Adduce Or Amend Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 292CSection 69A

accept this denial of the assessee on the grounds that the assessee had not denied that he had no business connection with Sh. Amit Shukla. He noted that the names of the projects mentioned in the loose papers were the projects being developed by the persons whose names are mentioned ... mentioned in the said documents and that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 3 Crores to Sh. Amit Shukla. Merely pointing out some business connections between the parties were not sufficient to conclude that the assessee had advanced to any money to Sh. Amit Shukla. It was further submitted

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, 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

governs the obligation to deduct tax at source on payments made to non-residents, does not stipulate the existence of a permanent establishment or business connection of the non-resident in India, nor does it make any reference to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 3. That

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6159/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

resident, includes any person in India- (a) who is employed by or on behalf of the non-resident; or (b) who has any business connection with the non-resident; or (c) from or through whom the non-resident is in receipt of any income, whether directly or indirectly ... such transactions in the ordinary course of his business and not as a principal. [Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “business connection” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation 2 to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of sec-tion 9 of this

Showing 1–20 of 833 · Page 1 of 42

...