“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

Zscaler, Inc., United States vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 3376/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Ccountant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Zscaler Inc., Vs Dcit, 120, Holger Way San Jose, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), California, Usa, Delhi. Usa 95134. Pan: Aaacz4350P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate; Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate; Ms Ankita Prakash, Advocate; & Shri Govind Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.10.2023 & 22.01.2025 Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

levy at the rate of 2% on the receipts wants to avoid paying taxes at the rate of 40% on the profit attributed to business connection in India as business Income. As per the form no. 1 submitted by assessee, it is observed that assessee has filed the said form

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)

whether or not, 7 | P a g e ITA Nos. 2200 & 2201/Del/2024 (1) the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India; or (ii) the non-resident has rendered services in India.. As per explanation below section 9(2) of the Income

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: 'D' NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the L.d. CIT has grossly erred in holding that the Appellant has a Business connection in India. 13 That the order passed by the Ld. CIT defies the Principle of Binding Precedents. That the Appellant reserves its right and prays ... determining the profits attributable to such activities in India. 8.2 To tax the business profits of the non-resident, dual test of existence of "business connection" under section 9(1)(i) of the Act and the Permanent Establishment (PE) threshold under Article 7 of the relevant DTAA is required

Income Tax Officer Ward Hingoli, Ward Hingoli (Camp at Parbhani) vs. Vishwas Agro Product Pvt Ltd, Parbhani

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1566/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Govind PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje – JCIT (Virtual)

Section 143(2)

therefore, asked the assessee to submit the details of foreign remittances done by the assessee in the capacity of remitter and remittee along with business connection. The assessee submitted the supplier order confirmation issued by Pranav International Ltd. The Assessing Officer thereafter asked the assessee to show cause ... substantiate the creditworthiness of unsecured loan provider - Pranav International Ltd., Dubai but also failed to substantiate that whether these funds are having any business connection with the assessee or not. The assessee did not submit any documentary evidence to prove that there is any business relation between the assessee- company

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. United Home Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1559/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

that, firstly, PanAmSat is a USA based company, therefore, Indo-U'S DTAA is applicable and since it does not have any PE or business connection inIndia, therefore, the payment made to a non-residentoutside India for auailinq service of equipment placed outside India cannot be taxed in India

Veerendra Kumar Patil, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1658/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

noticed that the assessee had not filed return of income. On 27.10.2021, assessee submitted the interest paid details financial statement in ITR form, business connection for interest paid etc.. The AO observed that in spite of giving various opportunities to the assessee, he has not provided details of source

Veerendra Kumar Patil, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1657/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

Veerendra Kumar Patil, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1656/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

Sud Chemie India Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Corporate Cir 2(1), Kochi, Ernakulam

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

ITA 990/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Radesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35

submitted that the subscription fees paid to the membership of the club is only for business purposes in order to improve the business connections of the appellant placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Samtel Colour

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax ) Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1238/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailowens Corning (Singapore) Pte Ltd., C/O Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd., 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai ............... Appellant Maharashtra - 400076 Pan : Aabco5666L V/S Dcit (It) – 3(2)(2) 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, ……………… Respondent Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

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

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

taxable in India as the assessee has neither any Permanent Establishment in India as per Article 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA nor any business connection in India. It was further observed that in the assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-22, this income was also treated

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the assessee submitted that the testing services were performed entirely outside India and the non- resident recipient had no business connection or permanent establishment in India. It was contended that the payment did not constitute income chargeable to tax in India and hence no obligation

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl, Tax 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan: Aaaca 3012H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Dated 13.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Order Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.03.2024 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant :-2-:

Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Kamineni Health Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 406/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

commercial exigency, but, failed to prove the theory of commercial exigency by bringing on record any evidence to prove that there is a business connection between the two companies. Further, although, the appellant-company claims that it is a holding company of appellant-company, but, in our considered view, except

Derewala Industries Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed; while

ITA 170/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 195(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A

above referred expenses even, to the non-resident persons, whether or not the non-resident person had a residence or place of business or business connection in India or any other presence in any manner whatsoever in India. The explanation 2 has been inserted by the Finance ... that since the non-resident persons whom the 7 Derewala Industries Limited vs. ACIT/DCIT payments were made did not have place of business or business connection in India, therefore, the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source on the above referred payments, is not correct. Regarding the second

Shri Vijay Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

The appeals are allowed

ITA 928/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5414/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234B

shall be included in the total income of non-resident, whether or not, non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India or the non-resident has rendered services in India. He held, since, the aforesaid amendment was introduced with retrospective effect from 1st June

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

also held that the commission income is taxable under section 9(1)(i) of the Act since the Hong Kong Branch is having a business connection in India, as the business income and since the assessee is having a PE in India arising in India. Accordingly the AO attributed