Which cases are most cited on Section 195(1)?

CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd. (212 Taxmann 454) — 177 citing judgments; CIT v. Wipro Ltd. (203 Taxmann 621) — 140 citing judgments; CIT v. Dinesh Kumar Goel (331 ITR 10) — 87 citing judgments; CIT v. HEG Ltd. (263 ITR 230) — 77 citing judgments; CIT v. Wipro Ltd. ( (70 Taxmann.com 129) — 77 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 195(1)?

BharatTax indexes 52 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd. (212 Taxmann 454) is the decision most relied on for Section 195(1), cited in 177 judgments. Payments for computer software are treated as royalty income under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, particularly concerning the expanded definition provided by Explanation 2 and Explanation 4.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 195(1) falls under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 393 (Tax to be deducted at source) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 393 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 195(1) is CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd. (212 Taxmann 454), cited in 177 of the 52 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 195(1)

CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd.

212 Taxmann 454 · 2013 · High Court

177

citing judgments

Payments for computer software are treated as royalty income under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, particularly concerning the expanded definition provided by Explanation 2 and Explanation 4.

CIT v. Wipro Ltd.

203 Taxmann 621 · 2011 · High Court

140

citing judgments

CIT v. Dinesh Kumar Goel

331 ITR 10 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

Income is recognized when it is absolutely ascertained, determined, and specified, conferring an exclusive right of receipt upon the assessee, irrespective of the accounting period.

CIT v. HEG Ltd.

263 ITR 230 · 2003 · High Court

citing judgments

Payments made for mere information, not involving the imparting of secret, confidential, or specialized technical, industrial, commercial, or scientific knowledge, experience, or skill, do not qualify as 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act or relevant DTAA articles. Not every piece of commercial information constitutes royalty; expertise or skill in providing it is required.

CIT v. Wipro Ltd. (

70 Taxmann.com 129 · Reported

citing judgments

Payments are liable for deduction of tax at source when they are in the nature of royalty. The withholding tax liability can be worked out by applying a proportion to the total remittance.

EY Global Services Ltd. v. ACIT

441 ITR 54 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Payments for software licenses that do not involve a transfer of copyright or proprietary interest, but merely authorize end-user access and use, do not constitute 'royalty' income. Additionally, IT support services are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or royalty.

ADIT(IT) v. Baan Global BV: 49 ITR(T) 73 (Mum)

317 ITR 169 · 2009 · Reported

citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted articles, including computer software, constitute royalty income under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, and are therefore subject to withholding tax under Section 195.

Marck Biosciences Ltd. v. ITO

164 ITD 205 · 2017 · ITAT

citing judgments

Payments for strategic counselling and advisory services are not royalty if they do not involve imparting information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific experience, but rather are for business promotion, marketing, publicity, or financial advisory services.

CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd.

343 ITR 366 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Payments to a non-resident agent for services rendered outside India, where the agent has no permanent establishment (PE) or business connection in India, are not chargeable to tax in India. Consequently, there is no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195, and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) can be made.

Evolv Clothing Company Private Limited v. ACIT

407 ITR 72 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Payments made to non-residents for canvassing sales orders outside India are not 'fees for technical services' and thus not taxable in India. The Madras High Court relied on earlier judgements to reach this conclusion.

Judgments on Section 195(1)

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 6397/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

Koso India Private Limited, Pune vs. Asstt. CIT Circle 1, Pune

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

ITA 1273/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Koso India Private Limited Acit, Circle 1, Nashik H-33 & 34, Midc, Ambad, Vs. Ambad A.S. S.O Nashik, Nashik-422010 Pan: Aacck3621N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 08-07-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 5(2)

Chowringhee Residency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O.(I.T.), Ward - Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2642/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Chowringhee Residency Pvt. Ltd. Ito (International Taxation) The 42, 42-B, Chowringhee Road, Ward-Kolkata, Kolkata-70010 Vs. Middleton Row, Kolkata-70071 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccd6701C Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.05.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

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

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, Mumbai

ITA 2722/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth andFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

Derewala Industries Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed; while

ITA 170/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 195(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP, Mumbai

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

ITA 5089/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. G. Tex Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1129/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 195(1)Section 250Section 40

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bengaluru vs. G. Tex Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 789/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Hita M., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 195(1)Section 250Section 40

Isys Softech Private Limited, Jaipur vs. CIT (A), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 271CSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3377/MUM/2006[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 145Section 195Section 195(1)Section 250Section 40Section 90(2)