← All Phrases

“Section 9(1)(vii)”

Section References (mined)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)933 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(vii) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii)

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.

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).

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.

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 9(1)(vii)

DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi vs. Roop Automotives Ltd., Haryana, India

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3009/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.3009/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), R. No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Cr Building, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant I.P Estate, New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Roop Automotives Ltd., 19, Rozka Meo Industrial Area, Nuh, Haryana 122107 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaacr-0315-C अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 01/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 29.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 50 Days. The Revenue Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate
Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowance of Rs.4,81,03,713/- without appreciating that the segregation charges were established to be technical services as per explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the same?" 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances

Toshiba Corporation, Japan vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2587/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

services. Further, even as per Section 9 of the Act, the payment cannot be treated as fees for technical service. Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) gives the meaning of the expression "fees for technical services" as per which, inter alia, any consideration which would be income

DCIT(It) 1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3127/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

Indian Suppliers to the assessee is not Rs taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act? 4. Without prejudice, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, DTAA between India and Singapore ... payments made by Indian subscribers to the assessee company which has been taxed as FTS by the ld. AO under provision of Section 9(1)(vii) and under the Article of India-Singapore DTAA. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, Alibaba Singapore, is a company incorporated under

DCIT(It)-1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3126/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

Indian Suppliers to the assessee is not Rs taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act? 4. Without prejudice, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, DTAA between India and Singapore ... payments made by Indian subscribers to the assessee company which has been taxed as FTS by the ld. AO under provision of Section 9(1)(vii) and under the Article of India-Singapore DTAA. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, Alibaba Singapore, is a company incorporated under

DCIT(It)-1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3125/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

Indian Suppliers to the assessee is not Rs taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act? 4.Without prejudice, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, DTAA between India and Singapore would ... payments made by Indian subscribers to the assessee company which has been taxed as FTS by the ld. AO under provision of Section 9(1)(vii) and under the Article of India-Singapore DTAA. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, Alibaba Singapore, is a company incorporated under

Linklaters LLP, London vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle (3)(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Linklaters Llp Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Income Tax (International Llp, Tower 3, 27-32 Floor, One Taxation) - 3(1)(2), International Centre, Mumbai Elphinstone Mill Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (West), Mumbai – 400 013. (Pan: Aabcl5182G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

learned AO held the taxability of income would be governed under section 9(1)(1) of the Act as well as under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act (c). The leamed AD held the income would be taxable as per Article 7 of the India-UK DTAA as well ... Without prejudice to the above, the learned AD ought to have appreciated that in view of the specific provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(c) and also the fact that the services rendered by the appellant were not utilised by the clients in India, the appellant's entire income cannot

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, Stafford, United Kingdom vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1)Del, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms aforesaid

ITA 2042/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Uk Grid Solutions Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income St Leonards Building, Harry Tax, Circle International Taxation Kerr Dive, Stafford St16 1Wt, Vs -3(1)(1), Civic Centre, Minto Road United Kingdom-99999 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaica6271A Assessee/Appellant Revenue/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(2), New Delhi, Civic Centre, Minto Road

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

ITA 2029/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

earned by the Appellant for sale of online journals or books constitutes fees for technical services ("FTS") / Fees for Included Services ("FIS") under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with Article 12 of India-USA tax treaty. 3.1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case ... failed to appreciate that receipts for services provided to Indian customers merely constitute standard offering (products) and thereby do not constitute FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-USA tax treaty. 3.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Tungsten Automation England Ltd, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Intl Taxation Circle-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1957/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 147Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

other related services which does not involve any specialised advice or consultancy, so as to be characterised as FTS under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 7. That the Respondent/ DRP failed to appreciate that since provision of e-invoicing software and other related services ... above grounds has assailed findings of the Assessing Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel in characterising receipts of the assessee as FTS within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, as well as, Article 13(4)(c) of India UK DTAA. From perusal of the impugned assessment order, we find

Gsma Ltd, Usa vs. ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.P Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) held that the Administration Fee received by the assessee is in the nature of royalty as per Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, as well as, India-USA DTAA. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that similar addition was made by the Revenue ... submitted that the AO has erred in holding that the subscription fee received by the assessee is taxable as royalty in terms 5 section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as India-US DTAA. The AO has lost site of the fact that the ownership of the subscription

Skechers Sarl, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2028/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

neither managerial, technical or consultancy in nature, the consideration paid towards the same cannot be termed as Fees for Technical Services as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee thus submitted that, it also does not have PE/Business Connection in India, therefore the said commission income ... paragraph 5 of the remand report, it has been stated that buying commission is in nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 1. 2. In this regard, we wish to invite your Honour's attention to the clarifications filed before your Honour vide

B S R & Associates LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2397/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Aggarwal, Ajit Kumar Jain
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 9(1)(vii)

case of Appellant's own matters for AY 2008-09 was incorrectly relied upon by learned AO since Explanation 1 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act was introduced by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect. The learned PCIT ignored the fact that the appellant has relied

Invesco Holding Company (Us) Inc., Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 846/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.846/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Inveso Holding Company (Us) Inc., C/O Invesco (India) P. Ltd., 15Th Floor, Block 6, North Tower, Divyasree Orion Sez, Raidurgam, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, Telangana 5000032 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaeci-9027-N बनाम Vs. Assisnat Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 2(1)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: S/Shri Ankul Goyal & Advitya Grover, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2024 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Shri Ankul Goyal, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Solitary Issue In Present Appeal Is Against The Addition Of Rs.54,85,23,539/- In Respect Of Reimbursement Of Cost For Providing It/Support Services Treated As Fee

For Appellant: S/Shri Ankul Goyal & Advitya GroverFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

apply. 4.1 Ld. Counsel has submitted that the above observations of the Hon'ble High Court have been rendered in the context of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with Article 12 of the IndiaIreland DTAA wherein the condition of make available is not contained therein. Be that

The Milestone Aviation Asset Holding Group No.25 Ltd., Ireland vs. ACIT Int. Tax. Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided in favour of the appellant assessees and against the Revenue

ITA 1351/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1350/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Vertical Aviation No. 1 Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Dolmen House, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, 4 Earlsfort Terrace, Vs. Circle Int. Tax. - 3(1)(1), Dublin 2, Ireland Do2E024 Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aafcv8726N New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.1351/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 The Milestone Aviation Assistant Commissioner Of Asset Holding Group No. 25 Income Tax, Ltd., Vs. Circle Int. Tax. - 3(1)(1), Dolmen House, 3Rd Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road, 4 Earlsfort Terrace, New Delhi-10002 Dublin 2, Ireland D02E024 Pan: Aahct8009N (Appellant) (Respondent) Both Appellant By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advocate Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Advocate (Vc) Sh. Devansh Jain, Advocate Ms. Disha Jham, Advocate Sh. Soham Dua, Advocate, Sh. Hardeep Singh, Advocate & Sh. A. S. Bajpai, Advocate Both Respondent By Shri Indruj S. Rai, Spl. Counsel, Sh. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Sc, Sh. Rahul Singh, Jr. Sc, Sh. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rini Handa, Jcit (Intl. Tax) Date Of Hearing 12/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Common & Identical.

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 194LSection 9(1)(vii)

Whether the appellant assessees are eligible for benefit of Article 8 of India-Ireland DTAA ?; (iv) Taxability of lease rent/receipts as royalty under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also interest as per India-Ireland DTAA; (v) Interest income taxable @ 5% under section 194LC

Vertical Aviation No. 1 Limited, Ireland vs. ACIT Int. Tax. Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided in favour of the appellant assessees and against the Revenue

ITA 1350/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1350/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Vertical Aviation No. 1 Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Dolmen House, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, 4 Earlsfort Terrace, Vs. Circle Int. Tax. - 3(1)(1), Dublin 2, Ireland Do2E024 Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aafcv8726N New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.1351/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 The Milestone Aviation Assistant Commissioner Of Asset Holding Group No. 25 Income Tax, Ltd., Vs. Circle Int. Tax. - 3(1)(1), Dolmen House, 3Rd Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road, 4 Earlsfort Terrace, New Delhi-10002 Dublin 2, Ireland D02E024 Pan: Aahct8009N (Appellant) (Respondent) Both Appellant By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advocate Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Advocate (Vc) Sh. Devansh Jain, Advocate Ms. Disha Jham, Advocate Sh. Soham Dua, Advocate, Sh. Hardeep Singh, Advocate & Sh. A. S. Bajpai, Advocate Both Respondent By Shri Indruj S. Rai, Spl. Counsel, Sh. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Sc, Sh. Rahul Singh, Jr. Sc, Sh. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rini Handa, Jcit (Intl. Tax) Date Of Hearing 12/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Common & Identical.

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 194LSection 9(1)(vii)

Whether the appellant assessees are eligible for benefit of Article 8 of India-Ireland DTAA ?; (iv) Taxability of lease rent/receipts as royalty under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also interest as per India-Ireland DTAA; (v) Interest income taxable @ 5% under section 194LC

Aka Ausfuhrkredit-Gesellschaft Mbh, Outside India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Int Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in taxing the management fee (processing fees) as Fees for Technical Service under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany (DTAA') 9. During the hearing before us, the Ld. AR submitted that, in respect

Snc Lavalin Inc., Delhi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1760/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

group companies for use of various software shall not be taxable as Fee for Included Services ('FIS')/Fee for Technical Services ('FTS') under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with the Article 12 of India-Canada DTAA. 2.1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Dehradun

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 168/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

ONGC by Contractors in the batch of appeals do not qualify as FTS, in view of the exclusionary part of Explanation 2 to Section 9 (1) (vii). In that view of the matter, the Court held that the services are to be taxed under Section 44BB. The Court, thus ... other personnel) and therefore, fall under the DCIT Vs. Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Ltd. ambit of FTS/Royalty as defined in Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vii)/9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO arrived at the said conclusion after examining the contractual receipts which then were segregated

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 167/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

ONGC by Contractors in the batch of appeals do not qualify as FTS, in view of the exclusionary part of Explanation 2 to Section 9 (1) (vii). In that view of the matter, the Court held that the services are to be taxed under Section 44BB. The Court, thus ... other personnel) and therefore, fall under the DCIT Vs. Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Ltd. ambit of FTS/Royalty as defined in Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vii)/9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO arrived at the said conclusion after examining the contractual receipts which then were segregated

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 166/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

ONGC by Contractors in the batch of appeals do not qualify as FTS, in view of the exclusionary part of Explanation 2 to Section 9 (1) (vii). In that view of the matter, the Court held that the services are to be taxed under Section 44BB. The Court, thus ... other personnel) and therefore, fall under the DCIT Vs. Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Ltd. ambit of FTS/Royalty as defined in Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vii)/9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO arrived at the said conclusion after examining the contractual receipts which then were segregated