“business connection”

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

The decision most relied on for business connection is Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT (288 ITR 408), cited in 394 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on business connection

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. 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.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court

243

citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT

95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court

213

citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal and Co.

56 ITR 20 · 1965 · Supreme Court

156

citing judgments

A 'business connection' for non-residents requires a real and intimate relation between their trading activities outside India and activities within India, contributing directly or indirectly to their earnings. The Supreme Court assigned a wide meaning to this term.

CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.

367 ITR 155 · 2014 · High Court

139

citing judgments

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source on export agency commission paid to a non-resident does not apply if the non-resident's income is not taxable in India under section 9(1), such as when the agent operates outside India without a permanent establishment or business connection in India.

Set Satellite Pte Ltd. v. CIT

307 ITR 205 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

If a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) is remunerated at arm's length based on transfer pricing principles, no further profits can be attributed to the foreign enterprise. The principles of profit attribution under DTAA Article 7 are pari-materia to Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

IT Solution Inc. v. ADIT

86 Taxmann.com 240 · 2017 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Once the arm's length principle has been satisfied under transfer pricing provisions, no further profit can be attributed to a person even if they have a permanent establishment in India. A reassessment notice based solely on the allegation of a permanent establishment is unsustainable if the arm's length price procedure has been followed.

Judgments citing business connection

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects Inernational Limited, Gujarat

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

ITA 6114/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

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

ITA 6113/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5961/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5960/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

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

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5959/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

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Limited (Formerly Known As Kyocera Mita Asia Limited), Hongkong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Intt Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1664/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

3546/DEL/2023 & 1664/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23] Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Vs. ACIT was held that a business connection involves a relation between a business carried on by a non-resident which yields profit or gain and some activity in the taxable territories. 10. Before

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Limited, Hong Kong vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 380/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Ltd., (Formerly Known As Kyocera Mita Asia Limited), Hong Kong vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3546/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

The Uk Trade Desk Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Int.Tax)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, various sub grounds of ground no

ITA 2038/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) The Uk Trade Desk Ltd. Acit (International Taxation-4(3)(1), 10Th Floor, 1 Bartholomew Close, Vs Mumbai, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, London, United Kingdom. [Pan No. Aahct6320Q] Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254(1)Section 9(1)(i)

provision of section 9(1)(i) of the Act held that all income accruing or arising whether directly or indirectly through or from business connection in India shall be deemed to accrue and arise in India. The assessing officer recorded that Indian entity / devoted wholly on behalf of the assessee

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)

based on the directions of the learned DRP, erred in holding that the Indian 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 ... assessing officer by referring section 9(1)(i) of the Act held that assessee is earning from India on regular basis and have business connection in India. There is no clause in the agreement whether the assessee will be due diligence risk/premium calculation on itself. No active role is being

Saic Motor Corporation Ltd, China vs. DCIT, International Tax, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1191/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Saic Motor Corporation Assistant Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Room No.509, Building No.1, Vs Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Tower No.563, Songtao Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Pilot Free Trade Zone, Sanghai, Haryana-122001 China, Pan-Abfcs0870H Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Kunal Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

cohesive business activities. The Ld. DRP held that these facts clearly show that the revenue earned by the assessee company is through a business connection in India and had taken place through the Indian subsidiary in India. 11.4. Further, the Ld. DRP noted that findings as a result of search

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int. Tax., New Delhi

ITA 381/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held that the Assessee has PE in India under the India- Netherlands DTAA and also has business connection within the meaning of section 9 of the Act under the domestic law. Further in the case of a group company of the Assessee

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7534/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 410/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Bechtel Ltd, London vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

respective address and taxed in India, and; (ii) The receipts can also be treated as FTS/FIS, however, since, the assessees have business connection and PE in India, the receipts have to be taxed as FTS/FIS under section 44DA of the Act, but on protective basis. 10. On perusal of final ... respective address and taxed in India, and; (ii) The receipts can also be treated as FTS/FIS, however, since, the assessees have business connection and PE in India, the receipts have to be taxed as FTS/FIS under section 44DA of the Act, but on protective basis. 10. On perusal of final

Bechtel Limited, London vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1816/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

DCIT, Circle 3 4, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 2244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1517/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

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)

ground that the advertisement and subscription revenue were business profits, which cannot be taxed in India, as the Assessee did not have any business connection in India as per the Act, nor it had PE in India under the treaty and therefore the said income was not chargeable ... special provision dealing with a specific type of income such a provision would exclude the general provision. (B) Appellant does not have business connection in India. Hence the appellant has no business income in India. (C) Even if it is held that the royalty is income arising from business connection

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Abhayraj Fattehraj Chordiya, C/O Laxmi Oil Mil

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R BhattFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

basis of papers found with some third party, addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee particularly when there is no business connection between the assessee and that party. He submitted that since no evidence other than some hand written notes were found from the premises