← All Phrases

“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
96
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
73
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

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3227/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

pointed out that the CIT(A) allowed the relief in respect of Rs.4,50,000 on the ground that Ramesh Babu has no business connection with the Assessees etc. However, the CIT(A) noted that the entry of Rs.2,50,000 was not in the name of Ramesh Babu

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3225/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

pointed out that the CIT(A) allowed the relief in respect of Rs.4,50,000 on the ground that Ramesh Babu has no business connection with the Assessees etc. However, the CIT(A) noted that the entry of Rs.2,50,000 was not in the name of Ramesh Babu

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3224/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

pointed out that the CIT(A) allowed the relief in respect of Rs.4,50,000 on the ground that Ramesh Babu has no business connection with the Assessees etc. However, the CIT(A) noted that the entry of Rs.2,50,000 was not in the name of Ramesh Babu

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3223/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

pointed out that the CIT(A) allowed the relief in respect of Rs.4,50,000 on the ground that Ramesh Babu has no business connection with the Assessees etc. However, the CIT(A) noted that the entry of Rs.2,50,000 was not in the name of Ramesh Babu

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

pointed out that the CIT(A) allowed the relief in respect of Rs.4,50,000 on the ground that Ramesh Babu has no business connection with the Assessees etc. However, the CIT(A) noted that the entry of Rs.2,50,000 was not in the name of Ramesh Babu

DCIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3087/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

pointed out that the CIT(A) allowed the relief in respect of Rs.4,50,000 on the ground that Ramesh Babu has no business connection with the Assessees etc. However, the CIT(A) noted that the entry of Rs.2,50,000 was not in the name of Ramesh Babu

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3012/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

pointed out that the CIT(A) allowed the relief in respect of Rs.4,50,000 on the ground that Ramesh Babu has no business connection with the Assessees etc. However, the CIT(A) noted that the entry of Rs.2,50,000 was not in the name of Ramesh Babu

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 343 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम The DCIT H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh Circle 1(1), Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACO4024H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 988 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh The DCIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

India if it fulfills conditions laid out in section 9 of the Act:- 9 (l)(i) - specified that if the income has a business connection in India or through an asset or proprietary or transfer of capital asset in India. The appellant has contended that there was no business connection

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

India if it fulfills conditions laid out in section 9 of the Act:- 9 (l)(i) - specified that if the income has a business connection in India or through an asset or proprietary or transfer of capital asset in India. The appellant has contended that there was no business connection

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Intertnational Taxation Circle-1, Dehradun vs. Huyndai Heavy Industries Co Ltd, Tyagi Road Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 91/DDN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254

nexus with a PE in India and as per the provisions of Section 9(1) (i) of the Act, there is no business connection between off shore supplies and the activities carried out within India, therefore, the income for the said supplies are not taxable in India either under DTAA

Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Limited, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/DDN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254

nexus with a PE in India and as per the provisions of Section 9(1) (i) of the Act, there is no business connection between off shore supplies and the activities carried out within India, therefore, the income for the said supplies are not taxable in India either under DTAA

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Limited, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 156/DDN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254

nexus with a PE in India and as per the provisions of Section 9(1) (i) of the Act, there is no business connection between off shore supplies and the activities carried out within India, therefore, the income for the said supplies are not taxable in India either under DTAA

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2346/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

Deutsch India Power Connector and M/s Raychem RPG Pvt Ltd are related parties in the case of the assessee. The assessee, despite having close business connection with these related parties has failed to provide copy of ITRs of even these related parties. The AO has concluded that despite easy access

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Assistant Commissioner Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Block No.486,487, 488, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Mehsana Highway, Ahmedabad. Opp. Water Park, Dholasan, Mehsana-382732. [Pan :Aaacg7248 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bp Srivastava, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri BP Srivastava, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mehul K Patel, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36Section 37(1)

past years and also bought various imported machinery parts from the said subsidiary. The chart furnished by the assessee clearly establishes the close business connection between the assessee and its foreign subsidiary. But, unfortunately for the assessee companies that even after putting much effort in establishing the business scope ... subsidiary is clearly allowable as business expenditure covered u/s 28/37 of the IT Act. Also, in view of the close business connection of the assessee and the foreign subsidiary as narrated above, the assessee has clearly established that this subsidiary was selling goods of the assessee in other countries

Jayaram Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 711/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

property would decide to purchase real estate property based on the assessee’s ownership or display of luxury cars. Thus, there is no real business connection between luxury car expenses and the assessee’s real estate activities. 12.3 The learned DR also contended that the assessee had failed to produce

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 710/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 709/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 708/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 706/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

property would decide to purchase real estate property based on the assessee's ownership or display of luxury cars. Thus, there is no real business connection between luxury car expenses and the assessee's real estate activities. 12.3 The learned DR also contended that the assessee had failed to produce

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Cirlce-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 705/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED