Section 209(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.405

Section 209(1)(d) falls under section 209 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 405 (Computation of advance tax) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 405 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 209(1)(d) is National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT (383 ITR 648), cited in 69 of the 86 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 209(1)(d)

National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT
383 ITR 648 · 2016 · High Court
69
citing judgments

An Indian agent providing marketing services, without the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of a foreign company, does not constitute a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) for the foreign company in India under DTAA provisions.

Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. DDIT
365 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
55
citing judgments

When contractual obligations are for an entire project, only the income reasonably attributable to operations carried on in India is deemed to accrue or arise in India and falls within the tax net. This principle applies even in consortium arrangements where members have broader contractual roles, and income from supply of equipment should be characterized appropriately.

Trib.) 4) TVM Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax
237 ITR 230 · 1999 · Reported
47
citing judgments

A non-resident entity's activities in India are assessed for Permanent Establishment (PE) under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements, considering types like fixed place, construction, and agency PE, and the applicability of presumptive taxation under sections such as 44BBB.

DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co Inc.
25 ITR 27 · 1954 · Supreme Court
29
citing judgments

Profits are not wholly made by the act of sale and do not necessarily accrue at the place of sale; profits attributable to manufacturing operations accrue where the business operations are carried on.

(International Taxation) v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
426 ITR 1 · 2020 · Supreme Court
29
citing judgments

A permanent establishment (PE) exists if there is a fixed place of business through which an enterprise's business is wholly or partly carried on, reflecting the importance of PE concepts with globalized economic activity.

Net App B.V v. DDIT
78 Taxmann.com 97 · 2017 · High Court
25
citing judgments

The onus is on the revenue to prove the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

CIT vs. Visakhapatnam Port Trust (1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP), Motorola Inc. v. DCIT
82 ITD 106 · 2002 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

This case is authority for the proposition that the number of days spent by foreign enterprise in India should be counted based on the actual presence of employees or personnel, not by aggregating common days spent by multiple individuals.

DIT v. Rio Tinto Technical Services
340 ITR 507 · 2012 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Income that is considered business income for tax purposes must be computed on a net basis, accounting for expenses incurred to earn that income, and cannot be taxed in India on a gross basis.

CIT v. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd.
109 ITR 158 · 1977 · High Court
21
citing judgments

A business connection is established when there is a real and intimate relationship between the trading activities of a non-resident outside India and activities within India that contribute to the earning of income, with an element of continuity.

Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
237 CTR 438 · 2011 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply is not taxable in India if the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India had no role in securing or facilitating that supply. The separate nature of offshore and onshore contracts is relevant to this determination.

Judgments on Section 209(1)(d)

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploation Co

ITA/544/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. Hallibutron of Shore Service

ITA/8/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: (1). Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Ioincome Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/31/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Com. Income Tax vs. Readingh and Bates

ITA/55/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/30/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. Halliburton of Shore Service

ITA/11/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: (1). Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. M/S Reading and Bates Co

ITA/31/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Question: 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/21/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. Halliburton of Shore Service

ITA/10/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: (1). Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. Halliburton of Shore Service

ITA/13/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: (1). Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. M/S Reading and Bates Exploration Co

ITA/29/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. Halliburton of Shore Service

ITA/12/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: (1). Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. Halliburtonn of Shore Service

ITA/1/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: (1). Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Oncome Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/23/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. M/S Reading and Bates Exploration Co

ITA/24/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: (1). Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

ITA/17/2003HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Is As Follows:-

Section 191Section 192Section 209(1)(a)Section 209(1)(d)Section 234Section 234BSection 260A

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Explorations Co

ITA/529/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/32/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/22/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration Co

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

ITA/60/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows: -

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)