← All Phrases

“Section 13(9)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(9)40 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(9) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(9)

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.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

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. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

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.

Judgments citing Section 13(9)

Ameenamma Charitble Trust, Anantapur vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-Tirupati, Tirupati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee Trust is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1841/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1841/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Ameenamma Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer Trust, (Exemption) Ward – Anantapur. Tirupati. Pan: Aaeta7403P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ka Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K Vamsi Krishna, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Trust Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai, Dated 03/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 14/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri K Vamsi Krishna, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

filed the Form-10 on 25/09/2017, which was after the due date specified. The AO further observed that as per the provisions of section 13(9) of the Act, the benefit of accumulation in accordance with the provisions of section 11(2) shall not be allowed when ... expenditure to the tune of Rs.2,58,570/- to be included in the income of the assessee Trust as per the provisions of section 13(9) of the Act, wherein the provisions of section 11 & 12 would 4 Ameenamma Charitable Trust vs. ITO not apply to the income referred

Patan Education Society, Satara vs. ITO Exemption 1, Pune

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

ITA 705/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.705/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Patan Education Society, Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1, Shikka Mension, Patan S.O., Pune. Patan, Satara- 415206. Pan : Aaatp8412H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Vinod Pawar Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Visakhapatnam [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Order Under Section 143(1) Without Appreciating That The Adjustment Made Was Beyond The Purview Of The Provisions Of Section 143(1).

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 11Section 11(2)(c)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

erred in rejecting the assessee's appeal without appreciating that provisions of section 11(2)(c) and section 13(9) were not applicable to the assessee's case. 8. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 9. The appellant craves leave to furnish Additional Evidence which

Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Trichy vs. Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Thirukkovil, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 370/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025) धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Thirukkovil, Vs. The Executive Officer, Swamimalai, Kumbakonam – 612 301. [Pan: Aaata-6446-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15, Vide Order Dated 20.12.2024. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147

proceedings in the present facts of the case are related to the A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15. The extrapolation of the provisions envisaged in Section 13(9) to the factual matrix of the present case is not legally tenable on two counts namely (i) such extrapolation is not intended by the legislature

The Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Trichy vs. Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Thirukkovil, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 368/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025) धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Thirukkovil, Vs. The Executive Officer, Swamimalai, Kumbakonam – 612 301. [Pan: Aaata-6446-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15, Vide Order Dated 20.12.2024. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147

proceedings in the present facts of the case are related to the A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15. The extrapolation of the provisions envisaged in Section 13(9) to the factual matrix of the present case is not legally tenable on two counts namely (i) such extrapolation is not intended by the legislature

Sri Surya Narayana Swamy Vari Devasthanams, Arasavalli vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. 121/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Surya Narayana Swamy Vari Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Devasthanams, Of Income Tax, Arasavalli, Exemption Circle, Srikakulam District. Vijayawada. Pan: Aaajs0913Q (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43(10)

filed Form-10 and Form-9A and has accumulated the surplus amount of Rs.1,21,96,713/- as per the provisions of section 13(9) r.w.s 11(2) of the Act. The Ld. AO observed that Form-10 has not been filed electronically but has been filed manually ... observed that the Ld.AO has rightly not allowed the benefit U/s. 11(2) of the Act in view of the specific provisions of section 13(9) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal