“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

Income Tax Officer, 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shweta Manish Jain, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1594/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 147Section 14ASection 69C

addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of papers found with the third party when there was no business connection between the assessee and that third party. In the case of Rucha Consultancy LLP vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 174 taxmann.com

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2087/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

risk in the goods passed to thecustomers before the goods were delivered in India. The AO held that the assessee company had a business connection under domestic law and that it had a PE under the DTAA between India and Sweden. Business profits were estimated. Entire consideration for supply ... whether the assessee had a PE in India during the year is academic in the light of the fact that the assessee has no business connection. That since software is loaded on the hardware in terms of contract, it did not have any independent existence, so as to justify

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2086/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

Mitsui & Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(1)(International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5662/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Kumar Jatav, SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

both the decisions did not examine the taxability of the receipts as being accrued or arisen under section 9(1)(i) through business connection. In the instant case, there explicitly exist a business connection as obliquely accepted by the assessee when it relies on the decision of Supreme Court Page

Mariappan Austin Prakash, Bengaluru, Kanrnataka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl Txn Circle, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(i)

same in India. Ld. AO also invoked provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act stating that the assessee is having a business connection in India on account of Significant Economic Presence [in short “SEP]. Ld. AO also observed that the assessee has exceeded the threshold amount prescribed under ... section 9(1)(i) of the Act, Ld.AR submitted that Ld. AO has erred in invoking the deeming provisions stating that the assessee has business connection in India on account of Significant Economic Presence. He submitted that assessee does not have any business connection in India and hence the income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 2177/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekdcit, Vs. M/S. Koya & Company Construction Ltd. Central Circle 19, 12-2-831/38/1, 72 Migh, New Delhi. Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad – 500 028 (Telangana). (Pan :Aacck3240R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Devdas, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92CSection 92D

deeming provision operating against the resident or the non-resident and also as to the manner of business activity and existence of the business connection which argument on behalf of the assesses was negatived. 25. The course of business was so arranged that the business transaction between two units

Kantar Analytics India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Firefly Market Reserch India Private Limited (Successor of Analytics Quotient Service India Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4733/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

failed to establish the business nexus to own business as well as exact nature services provided by Associated Enterprises and hence the purpose and business connection of the claimed expenditure have not been established. Hence, the Assessing Officer is directed to undertake a disallowance of the claimed payments, which

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2827/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Lm Wind Power As, Denmark vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

India was taxable in India. 3.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily holding that the Assessee had business connection in India during the subject assessment year. 3.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that LM Wind Power Blades ... sales commission was not offered to tax by the assessee, as the same was not taxable in India in the absence of any business connection and/ or Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India. He submitted that in the assessment order dated 29.07.2024, it has been held that premises of LM India

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)

insurance premium Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd., amounting to Rs.422,87,22,703/- earned by the assessee from its Indian cedents. Assessee has a business connection in India as per the provision of Section 9(1)(i) of the Act and permanent establishment in India As per Article ... premium amounting to Rs.8,5116,158,941/- earned by the assessee from SRCL Indian Branch a business income after alleging that it has a business connection and PE in India. Since the facts, the rival contentions and the core issues in both years are substantially identical, and since the very

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)

No.3178/Mum/2025 & 4092/Mum/2025 Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd., amounting to Rs.422,87,22,703/- earned by the assessee from its Indian cedents. Assessee has a business connection in India as per the provision of Section 9(1)(i) of the Act and permanent establishment in India As per Article ... premium amounting to Rs.8,5116,158,941/- earned by the assessee from SRCL Indian Branch a business income after alleging that it has a business connection and PE in India. Since the facts, the rival contentions and the core issues in both years are substantially identical, and since the very

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)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in 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 ... wrongly been taken by the department and there is no such issue of controversy with regard to whether Infomedia 18 Pvt. Ltd., constitutes business connection of the assessee or PE in India because in these years there is no connection with Infomedia 18 Ltd., Ld. DR also agreed that these

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)

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)

Alicon Castalloy Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT, -1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1377/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1377/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Alicon Castalloy Ltd., V The Pr.Commissioner Of Gat No.1426, Village S Income Tax-1, Pune. Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, Pune – 412208. Pan: Aabcp0252B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Pr.C1T Erred In Revising The Asst, Order Passed U/S

Section 143(3)Section 263

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

Sempertrans India Private Limited, Roha vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1778/PUN/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1778/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain andFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade

Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92D

Mohan Sambaji Jacthap, Gurgaon vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2096/DEL/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

appellant) were family gifts made out of love and affection, as per family custom, and not related to any service rendered or business connection with the appellant. Despite this, the Department continues to proceed mechanically on a repeated unproven theory for nearly two decades, disregarding documentary proofs, foreign declarations

Mohan Sambaji Jacthap, Gurgaon vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2095/DEL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)

Mohan Sambaji Jacthap, Gurgaon vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2094/DEL/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 271(1)(c)