← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)(a)(vi)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)(vi)13 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a)(vi) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)(a)(vi)

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

DIT v. Ericsson A.B
343 ITR 470 · 2012 · High Court
256
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)(a)(vi)

Faurecia Emissions Control Technologies India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Corporate Circle 1(1) Che, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1223/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1223/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2023-24 Faurecia Emissions Control Assistant Commissioner Of Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.634, Karumuthu Center, Corporate Circle-1(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai-600 035 [Pan: Aaaca8450F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Siddhesh Chaugula, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Siddhesh Chaugula, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

trite law that when legal stipulations of a statute are unambiguously clear no different interpretations can be taken. We have noted that section 143(1)(a)(vi) postulates an adjustment to assessee total income based upon figures appearing in 26AS viz a viz income disclosed in return of income. Thus ... facts of the present case provisions of section 143(1)(a)(vi) were fully applicable. First proviso to section 143(1) postulates that an opportunity of being heard has to be given to the assessee by a mode including writing or electronic. The prescription of law is clear that

Priyesh Singhania, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194D

making adjustment on the basis of information available in the Form 26AS related to TDS u/s.194DA as the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(vi) stipulates that addition of income can be made but the refund of the maturity proceeds of Life Insurance Policy is not an income

Bamisha Sharad Nagda, Mumbai vs. Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1388/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bamishasharadnagda Ito,Ward-3(5), Thane A-504, Orbit Towers, Nathpai Nagar, Vs B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-400077. Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, [Pan No. Adlpn 6590 Q Wagle Estate, Thane-West, Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

Sharad Nagda 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 9,28,238/- under Section 143(1)(a) (vi) of the Act being incorrect and untenable in law may be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances ... under section 10, which were not part of total income as per section 10 and could not be considered making adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Act. Since power under section 143(1)(a)(vi) is limited in the manner to determine the correct total income

Rahul Jagannath Bandal, Pune vs. The DCIT, Circle 12, Pune

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

ITA 1382/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1382/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Balaji V
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 5

availability is to be verified from Form No.26AS and secondly the legality of adjustment made by CPC passed under the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Act which have already been omitted from A.Y. 2018-19 and under these given facts and circumstances, the matter deserves

Manisha Lal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC Bengaluru

ITA 5991/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Manisha Lal Dcit, Cpc D-422, Karachi Society Bangaluru New Link Road Vs. Adheri West Mumbai-400 053. Pan : Acfpl0485P Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Chokhani
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 145Section 154

appellant in the subsequent assessment years. The appellant further is stated that if the receipts are completely omitted then the provision of section 143(1)(a)(vi) shall be applicable. In our case, the assessee has not omitted the receipts, in fact the assessee has followed the Cash basis ... accounting and hence in view of the same section 143(1)(a)(vi) is not applicable. "However the appellant has filed to prove that he been consistently following cash basis of accounting and that the receipts as per form No. 26 As have dully been reflected the returns. Onus

Charanjeet Kaur, Yamuna Nagar vs. DCIT, Circle, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the addition so made and adjustment so done by the CPC is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 681/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

that the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,25,97,677/- which was processed under section 143(1)(a)(vi) by CPC Bangaluru and an adjustment of Rs. 43,77,584/- was made to the returned income basis review of interest income reflected

Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for stati...

ITA 387/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Dcit Centralized Processing 3 Neel Sagar, 1280 Prabhadevi Centre, Seaface Prabhadevi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Brhpk 8129 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal PatelFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR
Section 154Section 234BSection 234C

This action of CPC is in conformity declared in the ITR. This action of CPC is in conformity with the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the with the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the 6.4 It is also a matter of fact that ... also a matter of fact that the provisions of section 6.4 It is also a matter of fact that the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Act empowers the CPC for adjustment 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Act empowers the CPC for adjustment 143(1

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 109/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No. 109/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Wanbury Limited बिधम / Adit, Cpc 10Th Floor, Section 30- 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Vs. No 48/1 48/2, A Bsel Tech Park, B Beratenaagrahareabegur, Wing, Opp. Vashi Hosur Rd, Uttarahallihobli, Railway Station, Vashi Bengaluru 560100 Mumbai 400705 स्थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp5939P (अपीलाथी .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 30Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

K H & Associates, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

ITA 2241/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194Section 44A

Associates 6. Undisputedly, while processing the return of income filed by the assessee, CPC, Bangalore has invoked the provisions contained under section 143(1)(a)(vi) which was applicable for A.Y. 2017-18 only, the year under consideration, as the same were thereafter abolished and made the adjustment under section ... income of Rs.59,236/- was offered under the head “income from business or profession”. Even otherwise adjustment made by the CPC under section 143(1)(a)(vi) is beyond the scope of section and power of CPC. Furthermore, instead of 7 M/s. KH & Associates sticking to the section referred

Serenity Traders Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A.O) 14(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2230/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atin S. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Kantilal Jain, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 579/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 234BSection 234CSection 250

acceptable for the reason that the income on the basis of which the difference has been arrived at in accordance with section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the IT Act is reflected in your Form 26AS. The head under which the difference has arisen due to non-reporting of income ... acceptable for the reason that the income on the basis of which the difference has been arrived at in accordance with section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the IT Act is reflected in your Form 26AS. The head under which the difference has arisen due to non-reporting of income

Insurekot Sports P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1075/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Noted The Facts Of The Case & Assessee’S Submission As Under :- “Assessee Has Availed Of A Franchiseeship Of Team Puneri Paltan Which Is A Participating Team In The Pro Kabaddi League Organized By Mashal Sports Private Limited. During Fy 2016 17 Ay 2017 18 It Received Prize Money Of Rs 3000000 Being The Third Placed Team Of The Event. The Same Is Accounted & Shown Under The Revenue From Operations As Prize Money. The Same Is 2 Insurekot Sports Pvt. Ltd.

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(ix)Section 56(2)(ib)

done on six reasons mentioned therein. Though no specific reason has been mentioned prima facie the adjustment is on account of section 143(1)(a(vi) of the Act. This limb of the Act prescribe for the addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form

M/S. Fashion Matrix Clothing, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 550/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar L
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

come within the ambit of prima facie adjustment contemplated under section 143(1)(a). i.e., The adjustment in section 143(1)(a)(vi) is not justified, when there is no disallowance of Expenditure in Audit report, which is not taken in computation of total income. 6. Without prejudice, The adjustment ... section 143(1)(a)(vi) is not justified, as there is only increase in income in Audit report. Hence adjustment presuming "disallowance of expenditure" is bad in law, for AY prior to AY 2021-22. Issue related to section 2(24)(x) 7. Without prejudice, The learned CIT(A) failed