← 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)

Asst. Comm. of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Exxon Mobile Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400022

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross-

ITA 1283/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Exxon Mobile Company Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Aayakar Road No. 8, Sion (East), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 113/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1283/Mum/2022) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Exxon Mobile Company Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, Road Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 8, Sion (East), 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Mumbai-400020. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. A/W Mr. Dhiraj Jain Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR
Section 195Section 40

fees for technical services' as charges are not in the nature of 'fees for technical services' as defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Income defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Income defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii ... earning income from source outside India and therefore covered by the exception to section India and therefore covered by t he exception to section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and therefore not chargeable to tax. )(b) of the Act and therefore not chargeable

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Shridharan &For Respondent: Shri C T Mathew, DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

lower authorities erred in holding that the payments made towards export sales commission are in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1.2. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law, in not appreciating the decision ... that Sulzes Pumps I Pvt. ltd.;AY 15-16 no tax has deducted at source on such expenditure under Section 195 read with section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, the disallowance of ₹3,73,10,068/- was made. We find that assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

assessee and concluded that the services rendered are highly technical and professional in nature and therefore withholding of tax within meaning of section 9(1)(vii) would be applicable and therefore disallowed the entire amount u/s. 40(a)(i). 14. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the payments ... enduring benefit from the aforesaid survey. In that view of the matter, though Fugro rendered technical services as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2, it does not satisfy the requirement of technical services as contained in DTAA. Therefore the liability to tax is not attracted. Accordingly the first

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

assessee and concluded that the services rendered are highly technical and professional in nature and therefore withholding of tax within meaning of section 9(1)(vii) would be applicable and therefore disallowed the entire amount u/s. 40(a)(i). 14. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the payments ... enduring benefit from the aforesaid survey. In that view of the matter, though Fugro rendered technical services as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2, it does not satisfy the requirement of technical services as contained in DTAA. Therefore the liability to tax is not attracted. Accordingly the first

DCIT-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Karvat Cover More Assist Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250Section 40

ground, that, the amount payable to them was chargeable to tax in India under Article 12 of DTAA dealing with „Royalty‟ and section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. As a result, the AO disallowed the payment of Rs. 5,40,49,783, under provisions of section

Spencer Stuart International B.V., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1148/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

appellant from Spencer Stuart India Private Limited [SS India] towards executive search fees is taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Articles 12(5)(a) and / or 12(5)(b) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty. (A.Ys ... India for expenses incurred on its behalf at cost (without any mark-up) as taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as under Articles 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(b) of the India Netherlands tax treaty

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Cirlce- 12(3), Bangalore

ITA 2638/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Smt.Vandana Sagar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 260ASection 40Section 92C

No.715/B/2014 & IT(TP)A No.2638/B/2019. M/s.Subex Technologies Limited & Subex Limited. Ltd. v. DIT [2007] 288 ITR 408 (SC) has held that for Section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act to be applicable, it is necessary that services provided by a non-resident assessee under a contract should not only ... payable by a resident to a non-resident by way of fees for technical services would not always come within purview of section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act but it must have sufficient territorial nexus with India so as to furnish a basis for imposition of tax. In order

M/S Subex Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 715/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Smt.Vandana Sagar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 260ASection 40Section 92C

No.715/B/2014 & IT(TP)A No.2638/B/2019. M/s.Subex Technologies Limited & Subex Limited. Ltd. v. DIT [2007] 288 ITR 408 (SC) has held that for Section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act to be applicable, it is necessary that services provided by a non-resident assessee under a contract should not only ... payable by a resident to a non-resident by way of fees for technical services would not always come within purview of section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act but it must have sufficient territorial nexus with India so as to furnish a basis for imposition of tax. In order

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.989/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Electronic City, Hosur Road, Tax, Bengaluru – 560 100. International Taxation, Pan : Aaccp 4478 N Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Of Cit(A) - 12, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Bpo Services. The Assessee Made Payment Of 2100 Us$ To A Non- Resident Viz., Stakeholder Centered Coaching (International Ltd.,)

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 248Section 5Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee to the non-resident can be regarded as a fee for technical services (FTS) within the meaning of Explanation to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Under Sec.5 of the Act, income of a non-resident, if it accrues or arises in India, the same shall be taxable ... expression "technical services" has not been defined anywhere in the Act. However, "fees for technical services" has been defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii). [Para 7] ■ In the present case, the assessee is getting the translation of the text from one language to another. The only requirement

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2889/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR)
Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80J

vii) of the Act or not. Section 9 of the Act lists out income which are “deemed to accrue or rise in India”. Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act reads as under:- “9(1)(vii) income by way of fees for technical services payable by— (a) the Government ... technical services to the appellant company. Therefore, the payment made towards these technical services is undisputedly fee for technical services as stipulated in Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act, liable for deduction of tax at source.” 7.8 The contention of the Ld A.R is that the assessee

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

ITA 711/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT-DR
Section 92C(3)(c)Section 92D

High Courts is that fee for providing internet / broadband facility is not technical services as contemplated under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, and the payment made for interconnection provided, through ports is not liable for deduction of tax at source. The Delhi High Court emphasized

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse Ag, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

referral fee is in the nature of „fee for technical services‟. The expression „fees for technical services‟ finds meaning in Explanation(2) below Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act; broadly speaking, the Explanation prescribes that „fees for technical services, means any consideration for rendering of any managerial, technical ... entity for referring certain international clients was held not to be in the nature of „fees for technical services‟ within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Notably, the aforesaid decisions have also been referred and relied upon by the DRP in concluding that the „referral

M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited (Formerly Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2387/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 40

assessee in the case of Ishikawajma- Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) is not applicable because that decision has been rendered in respect of section 9(1) (vii)(c) which is applicable in the case of non-residents where as clause (b) deals with residents. However, at the same time, common ... that the Assessing Officer held that the payments made partake the character of fees for technical services in terms of explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, and therefore in the absence of tax deduction at source, a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted

M/S Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2898/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 40

assessee in the case of Ishikawajma- Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) is not applicable because that decision has been rendered in respect of section 9(1) (vii)(c) which is applicable in the case of non-residents where as clause (b) deals with residents. However, at the same time, common ... that the Assessing Officer held that the payments made partake the character of fees for technical services in terms of explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, and therefore in the absence of tax deduction at source, a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted

Red Hat India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5831/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5831/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5833/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5834/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, A 201, Supreme Business Park, बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Supreme City, Hiranandani Vs. Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6034/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6036/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6037/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), R. No. 473, Aayakar A 201, Supreme Business बनाम/ Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Park, Supreme City, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddeshFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM 1

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1019/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

foreign agent for arranging of export sales and recovery of payments could not be regarded as foo for technical services under section 9(1)(vii). The services rendered by the non-resident agent for the export commitment would not fall within the definition of fees for technical services' and since

M/S Kennametal Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

ITA 1658/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(3)

ITA No.1658/Bang/2017 M/s. Kennametal Inc., USA Technology Way IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

Internaitonal Hotel Licensing Company Sarl, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2951/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Paras Salva a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)

received by the assessee from the Indian hotel owner under the IMPPA would be taxable in India as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 28/02/2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, by observing

Owens Corning Inc., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 741/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

received by the appellant of Rs. 2,86,00,164 during the year under consideration by treating the same as 'royalty' as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India ... treated the said receipts as royalty in terms of Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and USA and as per section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 5 of the Income-tax Act and brought it to tax accordingly. The assessee, on the other hand, maintains that