“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)

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

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1293/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

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 as under; ITA Nos. 1293 to 1296/Bang/2024 Page 18 of 39 Explanation 2: for the purposes

Oman Telecommunications Company Saog, Oman vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/ Circle International Tax 2(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1023/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraoman Telecommunications Deputy Commissioner Company Saog Of Income Tax/Circle Vp Finance Office, Po Box 789, Vs. International Tax Postal Code 11, Ruwi Muscat, 2(2)(2), Delhi. Sultanate Of Oman Outside India Pan-Aabco4203F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/07/2025 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm: The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 25Th December, 2024 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Ast/S/147/2024-25/1071556765(1) Dated 25/12/2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Coming Out From The Orders Of The Authorities Below Are That The Assesse Is Foreign Company & Had Not Filed Return Of Income For The Impugned Year. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Ground That Assessee Has Received Certain Payments From Two Indian Entities Namely M/S Bharti Airtel Limited & M/S Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd & Has Not Shown Any Income In India. The Assessing Officer Was Of The View That The Service Provided By The Assessee To The Indian Entities Were In The Nature Of The Fts And, Hence, Taxable In India. The Oman Telecommunications Company Saog Vs. Dcit Assessing Officer Relied Upon The Provisions Of Section 9(I)(Vii) Of The Act Held That The Service Rendered By The Assessee Are In The Nature Of Technical Services And, Hence, The Same Are Taxable In India. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs. 11,81,52,790/. Drp Also Affirmed The View Of The Ao Vide Order Dated 4Th November, 2024. Thereafter, Ld. Ao Framed The Final Assessment Order.

Section 148Section 56Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Delhi High Court while deciding identical nature of dispute has held that the expression technical services' as used in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) takes colour from the expression 'managerial and consultancy services', which necessarily involve a human element or human interface. The Hon'ble Court proceeded further ... general sense but in the narrower sense as circumscribed by the expression 'managerial service and consultancy service' as appearing in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, which requires rendition of service through human interface. Identical view has been expressed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

M/S. Ceva Freight Llc, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1264/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

examining the facts of the case, the definition of "Fee for Technical Services"(FTS), the Assessing Officer relied on Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and observed that the definition of FTS in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act shows that consideration ... affiliate, which are clearly in the nature of managerial and/or consulting services, accordingly, categorically held that the assessee's receipts constitute FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, FTS was computed at Rs. 6,58,25,207/-. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Hsbc Bank Plc, London

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1538/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 192

Data Processing (India) Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'HDPI') and required the assessee as to why the same should not considered as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee replied that these are reimbursement receipts from HSBC Electronic Data Processing (1) Pvt. Ltd. on account of seconded

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi vs. Nec Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7392/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

amounting to Rs. 9,34,91,383/- by ignoring the fact that the case was not covered by exception carved out by section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Dispute Resolutions Panel-II is legally justified ... doing so the Ld. DRP ignored the fact that the case was not covered by exception carved out by section 9(1) (vii) (b) of the Act. 8. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal filed, after inordinate delay of 1021 days i.e. on 08-12-2017with

ACIT, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 140/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

affairs outside India. Thus, the AO classified the activity rendered by the overseas agents as technical services and invoked the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No 1741 and 1525/Mds/2014 dated 19.05.2016 for Assessment Year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 139/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

ACIT, Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 117/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

M/S. Castlewick Fze, Dubai vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 459/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 201Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 9(1)(vii)

amount received by the assessee company from M/s. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd., to be `fees for technical services' falling within the ambit of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and made an addition of Rs.90 lakhs. Thereby raising a demand of Rs.18,62,640/- including interest u/s.234A and 234B ... India. 1.1 The Ld.AO and Ld. DRP erred in holding that in the absence of specific FTS clause in India – UAE DTAA, section 9(1)(vii) r.W.S.115A of the Act provides for taxing FTS at 10% plus surcharge and cess. 1.2 The Ld.AO and Ld. DRP failed to appreciate that

Ethiopian Airlines Group, Ethiopia vs. ACIT, Int. Taxation Circle-1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 2201/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115ASection 133ASection 147Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

relevant DTAA. AO has held that the income received by EA is chargeable to tax as fees for technical services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) read with section 115A of the Income-tax Act. On merit, assessee's grounds are basically two-fold. First, the contract agreement dated ... undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Salaries": As per Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii), "fees for technical services (FTS) means an consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services

Ethiopian Airlines Group, Ehiopia vs. ACIT Int. Taxation Circle-1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 2200/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115ASection 133ASection 147Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

Emerson Electric Company (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) Dcit, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [Pan No. Aaace1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)

directly to him are in fact FTS/FIS which in normal course should have been paid to overseas entity of Emerson Group taxable under section 9(1)(vii) and attract provisions of section 195. It was also held that employment visa cannot be considered as authentic information for concluding that

New Skies Satellites Bv, C/O Ernst and Young LLP vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 983/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

payments received by the Appellant as consideration for data transmission services would also qualify as “fee for technical services” as defined under section 9(1)(vii ) of the Act as well as within the meaning of Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. 4. That on the facts

Sheladia Associates Inc, Secunderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1401/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1401/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sheladia Associates Inc. Vs. Adit (International Secunderabad Taxation)-2 Pan : Aafcs7792F Hyderabad

For Appellant: Smt.V.Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 270ASection 40Section 44C

well as the definition provided in Article 12 of Indo-US DTAA. So far as the term “fee for technical services” provided in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act is concerned, the assessee has not disputed that the payment in question falls in the category of fee for technical ... which is an income in the hand of the US company arising in India. Even otherwise, as per explanation 1 and 2 of section 9(1)(vii) makes it clear that the fee for technical services means any consideration for rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services, including

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source outside India as the Company ... payees(supra) are not Singaporean entities. Coming to its argument that the annual maintenance charges amount to ‘technical services’ within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii), go against the case law of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd vs CIT 327 ITR 465 holding that section 195 applies only

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1263/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source outside India as the Company ... payees(supra) are not Singaporean entities. Coming to its argument that the annual maintenance charges amount to ‘technical services' within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii), go against the case law of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd vs CIT 327 ITR 465 holding that section 195 applies only

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1206/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)