“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)

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

ITA 2396/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

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

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 7113/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)

where these projects are executed. The payments made by the appellant to these non-resident parties are clearly covered by the exception in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and accordingly, no income can be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India on account of these payments

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 5502/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)

Adp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 975/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195Section 234ASection 40Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Veritas Storage (Singapore) Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1913/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Gulati, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)

treat the receipts of Rs. 1,29,26,30,316/- excluding the receipts from hardware appliances, as FTS under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with Explanation 2 and under Article 12 of the DTAA between Singapore and India treaty. The DRP however, excluded

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

that the payments made to foreign agent is sales commission and cannot be deemed, as fee for technical services and thus provisions of section 9 (1) (vii) will also be not applicable. Now, if the payments to the foreign agents are not a receipt (in agent's hand) which ... business connection in India. Thus, there is no possibility of applying section 9 (1) (i) of the Act. So far as application of section 9 (1) (vii) of the Act, is concerned, there is no formal agreement between the foreign party and the assessee which can determine nature

DCIT(TDS)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4431/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Mumbai, ............... Appellant V/S Piramal Enterprises Limited, Piramal Ananta, Agastya Corporate Park Kamini Junction Lbs Marg Opp. Fire Brigade Kurla, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400070 Pan : Aaacn5024A

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi (Virtually present)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 133B(2)Section 193Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

termed as "interest" within the meaning of section 2(28A) or "fees for technical services for service" within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii). 10. The definition of "interest" u/s 2(28A) reads as under:- "interest" means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed

ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs. Subramaniam Hariharan, New Delhi

ITA 600/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Tanya Sharma, Sr. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 40

services as being covered within the meaning of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and therefore, chargeable to tax in India in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 6 ITAs No.600/Del/2020, 9832/Del/2019 & 2134/Del/2018 9. We observe that in terms of the scheme of the Act, section ... Counsel, wherein, payment of professional fee is conspicuously absent. 10. In this context we find that Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act defines FTS to mean payments of any kind to any person in consideration for services of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature, including

Subramaniam Hariharan, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

ITA 9832/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 40

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 37, New Delhi

ITA 2134/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 40

services as being covered within the meaning of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and therefore, chargeable to tax in India in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 6 9. We observe that in terms of the scheme of the Act, section 4 of the Act provides that ... Counsel, wherein, payment of professional fee is conspicuously absent. 10. In this context we find that Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act defines FTS to mean payments of any kind to any person in consideration for services of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature, including

Manisha Kiran Temkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT -21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 674/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 195Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 90(2)

technical services. Even otherwise in case commission paid is considered for technical services, the assessee falls in exception of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii). 6. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities

Manish Kiran Temkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 673/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 195Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 90(2)

Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2678/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 Continental Foundation Joint Assistant Commissioner Of Venture, Income Tax, Circle-38(1), Continental House-28, Vs. Room No.2202, E-2, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaaac0084D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Advocate Sh. Shivam Malik, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred & Was Not Justified In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs 2.31,80,000/- On Account Of Reimbursement Of Legal & Professional Fee Paid To Members Of The Appellant, By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40Ba) Of The Act, Conveniently Ignoring Earlier Orders U/S 195(2) To The Effect That Impugned Amounts Were Not Covered U/S 40(Ba).

Section 195(2)Section 244ASection 40Section 40b

relation to which payments of legal & professional charges made by the assessee JV were in the nature of technical services falling under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the Indo Canadian Treaty. Hence, the same could not be treated as payment in the nature

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Western Geco International Limited, Haryana

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 141/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 141/Del/2024 (A.Y 2021-22)

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

services for 4C-3D OBN data processing & interpretation of data D1 to be in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 11/03/2024, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before ... nature of fees for technical services as the same is covered by the exclusion provided in Explanation (2) to Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act being consideration received for “mining or like projects” and the same, therefore, is not taxable under Section 44DA of the Act. The said services

Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, bot the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1254/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.1243/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Ernst & Young U.S. Llp Acit, Circle, C/O Authorized Representative, International Tax- Ernst & Young Llp, Vs. 1(2)(2), New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-2, Plot No.2B, Sector-126, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201304. Pan-Aadfe0355M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The Present Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 18Th December, 2024 & 12Th December, 2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19 & Assessment Year 2022-23 Respectively.

Section 139(4)

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

Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, bot the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1243/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Section 139(4)

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1750/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 270A

Support Services were liable to tax in the hands of the Assessee as ‘Fee for Technical Services’/’royalty’ in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as in terms of Article 12(5)(a) & 12(5)(b) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India ... India would fall within the expression 'fees for technical services' as appearing in article,13(4)(c) of the DTAA read with section 9(1)(vii) of the said Act. While doing so the Tribunal, inter alia, found that the assessee company was an international reinsurance intermediary (broker

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Cirlce - 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1296/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR

Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

which signified that the overseas entity through the employees rendered technical, managerial and consultancy services, thus satisfying FTS as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also under DTAA?" 4. The brief facts show that Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian company engaged ... consultancy services to AMAT India. Therefore, the payment towards such services fall within the ambit of FTS as defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The same is reproduced as under; Explanation 2: for the purposes of this clause, 'fee for technical services' means

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1295/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Respondent by

Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1294/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR

Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)