← 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)

Kennametal Inc, Bangalore vs. Assistant 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 35/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A No.35/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2017-18 M/S. Kennametal Inc., Vs. Acit (International Taxation), C/O. Kennametal India, Circle – 1(2), 8/9Th Mile, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 073. Pan: Aacck 6397 B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxn., New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

along with the hardware is taxable either under the provisions of India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a company incorporated in France ... Court in assessee’s own case in assessment year 1997-98 holding that supply of software is not taxable as royalty either under Section 9(1)(vii) or even under the Tax-Treaty. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record

DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

along with the hardware is taxable either under the provisions of India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a company incorporated in France ... Court in assessee’s own case in assessment year 1997-98 holding that supply of software is not taxable as royalty either under Section 9(1)(vii) or even under the Tax-Treaty. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 276/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT
Section 115JSection 14A

deductible. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He referred to provision of Section 9 (1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Explanation thereto and noted that a conjoint reading of the above provisions clearly brings out the amount paid to Noble ... ITA.Nos.1001 & 1002/Del./2016 And ITA.No.276/Del./2017 M/s. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi. provision of Section 195 read with Section 9 (1) (vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the A.O. held that the amount so paid is chargeable to tax in India and accordingly disallowed the same

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 1002/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT
Section 115JSection 14A

deductible. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He referred to provision of Section 9 (1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Explanation thereto and noted that a conjoint reading of the above provisions clearly brings out the amount paid to Noble ... ITA.Nos.1001 & 1002/Del./2016 And ITA.No.276/Del./2017 M/s. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi. provision of Section 195 read with Section 9 (1) (vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the A.O. held that the amount so paid is chargeable to tax in India and accordingly disallowed the same

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 1001/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT
Section 115JSection 14A

deductible. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He referred to provision of Section 9 (1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Explanation thereto and noted that a conjoint reading of the above provisions clearly brings out the amount paid to Noble ... ITA.Nos.1001 & 1002/Del./2016 And ITA.No.276/Del./2017 M/s. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi. provision of Section 195 read with Section 9 (1) (vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the A.O. held that the amount so paid is chargeable to tax in India and accordingly disallowed the same

Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, all Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6295/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

taxability of roaming charges the AO had opined that same was subject to TDS as per the provisions of section 194J read with section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as a nature of payment fall into the realm of the concerned section. Learned CIT(A) found that this issue ... India, the submissions of the assesses that the payment in question cannot be considered as 'Fee for Technical Services' in terms of section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 has to be upheld b) Bharti Airtel vs ITO (TDS) [2016] 67 taxmann.com 223 (Del Trio.) - On the issue ‘Whether

Dy. CIT (TDS)-2 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6242/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

taxability of roaming charges the AO had opined that same was subject to TDS as per the provisions of section 194J read with section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as a nature of payment fall into the realm of the concerned section. Learned CIT(A) found that this issue ... India, the submissions of the assesses that the payment in question cannot be considered as 'Fee for Technical Services' in terms of section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 has to be upheld b) Bharti Airtel vs ITO (TDS) [2016] 67 taxmann.com 223 (Del Trio.) - On the issue ‘Whether

Expeditors International of Washinton, Usa, Washington vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(2) Int.Tax., New Delhi

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

ITA 180/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

nature of fee for technical services / Fee for Included Services as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') respectively. That the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred ... International (India) Private Limited ('El India') is in nature of fee for technical services / fee for included services as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12 of the India- USA DTAA respectively. 4. That

Expeditors International of Washington Inc., Usa vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

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

ITA 1904/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

nature of fee for technical services / Fee for Included Services as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') respectively. That the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred ... International (India) Private Limited ('El India') is in nature of fee for technical services / fee for included services as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12 of the India- USA DTAA respectively. 4. That

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 678/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumeeth Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R (OSD)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

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, Bangalore vs. M/S Textron India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 594/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumeeth Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R (OSD)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

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

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

were provided for the export business of the service recipient and therefore not liable to tax as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.  The learned AO and Hon'ble DRP has erred in not recognizing that payments received by the Appellant fell within ... purview of the exclusionary clause of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and were not, therefore, chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Act.  The learned AO and Hon'ble DRP has erred in not appreciating that professional services provided by the Appellant

M/S. Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 1838/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

above kind that, according to us, should come within the ambit of the expression "technical services" appearing in Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the absence of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility offered ... aforesaid latter feature of a service rendered which is the essential hallmark of the expression "technical services" as appearing in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the transaction charges

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1833/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

above kind that, according to us, should come within the ambit of the expression "technical services" appearing in Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the absence of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility offered ... aforesaid latter feature of a service rendered which is the essential hallmark of the expression "technical services" as appearing in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the transaction charges

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 6502/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 928Section 92C(1)

Services being provided by HCL are consultancy in nature and covered by the nature of technical services defined under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and thereby subject to withholding provisions under Section 194J of the Act (Para 95 of the final assessment order at Page

M/S Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3158/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.3156/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3157/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.3156/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3156/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.3156/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year

M/S Moonfrog Labs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3066/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Moonfrog Labs Pvt. Ltd., 16/3, Level-3, The Assistant Adarsh Yellavarthy Centre, Commissioner Of Cambridge Road, Income Tax, Ulsoor Jogupalya, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore – 560008. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaicm9563H Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh .K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore (`A0') Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeals)-4 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

that since the process is automated and there is no human intervention, the payments do not qualify as Fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 3.2 The disallowance under section 14A was deleted by the CIT(A) in the absence of exempt income. 4. Aggrieved