← 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)

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-1 (1), Mumbai-400026 vs. M/S Guru Nanak Vidyak Society, Mumbai-400037

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1265/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit (Exemption)-1(1), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill Dr. Gd Deshmukh Marg, (Padder Road), Mumbai- 400026. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Guru Nanak Vidyak Society, Ground Floor, Guru Tesh Bahadur Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Sion Koliwada, Mumbai-400037. Pan: Aaatg2095D ..... Respondent Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Priyank Ghia & Kanu Chokshi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 29.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Condonation For Return Of Income When Only

For Appellant: Sh. Priyank Ghia & Kanu Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL