← All Phrases

“royalty income”

International TaxSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vi)629 judgments

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

cost\nallocated to the assessee of Croydon Data Processing Centre. Thus, without\ngoing into the question whether the cost was in the nature of Royalty income,\nwe do not find any merit in the disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of\nthe Act, and the same is deleted

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

cost\nallocated to the assessee of Croydon Data Processing Centre. Thus, without\ngoing into the question whether the cost was in the nature of Royalty income,\nwe do not find any merit in the disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of\nthe Act, and the same is deleted

HOME CREDIT INTERNATIONAL A.S.,CZECH REPUBLIC vs. ASSISTANTDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3846/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 282

receipts in dispute should not be treated as royalty/FTS, as, such receipts are ancillary to enjoyment of such services, for which, royalty income has been received. In response to the show-cause notice, assessee had furnished a detailed reply submitting that the amount received towards licence fee cannot be treated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BENGALURU vs. ANALOG DEVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

ITA 2074/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar & Shri Nirmal MathewFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT (DR)
Section 250

functionally dissimilar to the assessee, as it is engaged in outsourced software development activities and also derives revenue from sale of software products, royalty income and licensing of products. While the company offers diverse and dissimilar services, the entire revenue is reported under a single segment, and no reliable segmental

SURENDRA HIMMATLAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8536/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

Add/.JCIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Assessment Year 2024-2025 Officer-CPC of levying tax at rate of 30% on royalty income of Rs.19,03,766/- as against lower tax rate of 10% as per Section 115BBF of the Act. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances ... Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, when the Appellant has opted for lower tax rate of 10% on royalty income which was disclosed in the return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, the action of the Addl/JCIT(A) and Assessing Officer- CPC in denying benefit

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC.,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), RANGE 2(3)(2) - MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed in terms of above directions

ITA 8248/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankargemological Institute Of Vs. Acit (International America Taxation), Range - 5345, The Robert Mouawad 2(3)(2) Mumbai Campus, Armada Drive, Room No. 610, 6Th Carlsbad, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, California - 092008 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aadcg7962K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistry-Sr. Adv./Gunjan Kakkad Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 03.09.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2020-21. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 244ASection 92C

being the amount of royalty received for the year. 1:3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to consider the royalty income on the basis of the actual income earned for the year in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide ... expunge his remark on page No. 07 of the impugned Final Assessment Order dated 03 September 2025 wherein it has been mentioned that "Royalty income attributable to PE as discussed in the original assessment order dt. 12/01/2023". 2:0 Re.: Non-granting of interest u/s. 244A

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India Section 9(1)(vi) -Royalty Income by way of royalty payable by a Resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India except where the royalty is payable in respect

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India Section 9(1)(vi) -Royalty Income by way of royalty payable by a Resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India except where the royalty is payable in respect

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 3847/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

withholding tax paid by the Appellant in India as per its return of income; and ii) In relation to the adjustment on royalty income (relevant for AY 2012-13), the Competent Authorities have agreed to the 2% royalty rate as earned and offered to tax by the Appellant

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 5609/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

withholding tax paid by the Appellant in India as per its return of income; and ii) In relation to the adjustment on royalty income (relevant for AY 2012-13), the Competent Authorities have agreed to the 2% royalty rate as earned and offered to tax by the Appellant

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 211/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

withholding tax paid by the Appellant in India as per its return of income; and ii) In relation to the adjustment on royalty income (relevant for AY 2012-13), the Competent Authorities have agreed to the 2% royalty rate as earned and offered to tax by the Appellant

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2172/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

basis of the same reasoning as in A.Y. 2013-14. Further, the AO has also observed that as per Accounting Standard-9 of ICAI, royalty income is required to be accounted for on accrual basis. However, as can be seen from the order of the Hon'ble ITAT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

basis of the same reasoning as in A.Y. 2013-14. Further, the AO has also observed that as per Accounting Standard-9 of ICAI, royalty income is required to be accounted for on accrual basis. However, as can be seen from the order of the Hon'ble ITAT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

basis of the same reasoning as in A.Y. 2013-14. Further, the AO has also observed that as per Accounting Standard-9 of ICAI, royalty income is required to be accounted for on accrual basis. However, as can be seen from the order of the Hon'ble ITAT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

basis of the same reasoning as in A.Y. 2013-14. Further, the AO has also observed that as per Accounting Standard-9 of ICAI, royalty income is required to be accounted for on accrual basis. However, as can be seen from the order of the Hon'ble ITAT

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2117/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

basis of the same reasoning as in A.Y. 2013-14. Further, the AO has also observed that as per Accounting Standard-9 of ICAI, royalty income is required to be accounted for on accrual basis. However, as can be seen from the order of the Hon'ble ITAT

HASBRO SA,SWITZERLAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with above directions for statistical purposes

ITA 2842/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 250

subject year (AY 2020-21) i.e. neither the amount of royalty has been credited, nor corresponding TDS is reflected. Thus, basis for offering the royalty income in AY 2020-21 is not clear. 2. As per section 199 of the Act and Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules ... additional evidence:  The Appellant was under the bona-fide belief that material already brought on record before the Ed. CIT(A) demonstrates that since royalty income is offered to hoc in A 2020-21, the corresponding TDS credit (appearing in Form 2645 of AY 2021-22) should be given

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,ABU DHABI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

ITA 83/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

rightly the Tribunal came to the conclusion that a sum of 4,79,640 USD alone would fall for consideration under art 12 as royalty income and the other to be assessed as by way of technical services. As already pointed out even herein, with the finding of the assessing

Showing 1–20 of 629 · Page 1 of 32

...
royalty income — 629 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax