Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(i) is CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. (125 ITR 525), cited in 270 of the 81 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(i)

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.

CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal and Co.
56 ITR 20 · 1965 · Supreme Court
156
citing judgments

A 'business connection' for non-residents requires a real and intimate relation between their trading activities outside India and activities within India, contributing directly or indirectly to their earnings. The Supreme Court assigned a wide meaning to this term.

Carborandum Co. v. CIT
108 ITR 335 · 1977 · Supreme Court
75
citing judgments
CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd.
343 ITR 366 · 2012 · High Court
58
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.

G.V.K. Industries Ltd. v. ITO
228 ITR 564 · 1997 · High Court
41
citing judgments

A 'business connection' for a non-resident requires continuity of activity or operations and a real, intimate relation between the non-resident's business outside India and its activities in India, rather than merely isolated or stray transactions.

DIT v. Galileo International Inc.
224 CTR 251 · High Court
37
citing judgments

If the income attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is less than the remuneration paid to a dependent agent, the assessment is extinguished and no further computation of income is required.

US Technology Resources (P) Ltd. v. CIT
97 Taxmann.com 642 · 2018 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Payments for advice on management, financial, or legal services, offered on a factual basis without transferring technical know-how, are not taxable in India as fees for technical services.

ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.
11 Taxmann.com 70 · 2011 · High Court
29
citing judgments

The Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Clough Engineering Ltd. interprets treaty provisions and the expression 'in connection with PE' for taxability. It is not applicable when income is offered under domestic provisions and not disputed.

Evolv Clothing Company Private Limited v. ACIT
407 ITR 72 · 2018 · High Court
24
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.

Seth Pushalal Mansighka (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
66 ITR 159 · 1967 · Supreme Court
22
citing judgments

Income accrues at the place where title to goods passes to the buyer upon payment of the price. For offshore supply of equipment, if the transaction is completed outside India, no income accrues to the assessee in India.

Judgments on Section 9(1)(i)

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 816/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 250

SERCEL SA ,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/DDN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)

SUPERHOUSE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, DELHI, 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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI, BKC vs. HSBC BANK PLC, UNITED KINGDOM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4621/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit(It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai Hsbc Bank Plc Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautriya 8 Canada Square, London, Bhavan, G Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Foreign United Kingdom- Mumbai-400051. 999999, United Kingdom. (Pan : Aabch325P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 56, Mumbai Vide Order, Dated 02.04.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ld. Dcit (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai U/S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.02.2018, For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. "Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, For The Issue Of Expenses Of Rs. 3,77,38,994/-, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Relying On Para 16 Of Itat'S Order For A.Y. 2011-12 & Para 8 Of Itat'S Order For A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 As The Orders U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) For A.Y.S 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Never Examined The Issue Of 'Royalty' For The Reimbursement Received From Hsbc Securities & Capital Markets (India) Private Limited (Hsch).”

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

BOOKING.COM B.V.,THE NETHERLANDS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 887/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,COLOGNE, GERMANY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4691/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2448/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2447/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

THE UK TRADE DESK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (INT.TAX)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, various sub grounds of ground no

ITA 2038/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) The Uk Trade Desk Ltd. Acit (International Taxation-4(3)(1), 10Th Floor, 1 Bartholomew Close, Vs Mumbai, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, London, United Kingdom. [Pan No. Aahct6320Q] Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254(1)Section 9(1)(i)

GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 1817/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) General Reinsurance Corporation Acit (International Taxation), 1209, Orange Street Delaware, Vs Circle -2(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 610, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Wilmington, United States, 19801 Usa Bhavan, G Block, Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra (East), [Pan:Aahcg8162B] Mumbai-400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 9(1)

KLOECKNER DESMA MACHINERY PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(i)

SMS GROUP GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2) INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1592/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. KEWALRAM TEXTILES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

SWISS RE ASIA PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place

ITA 4092/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

LINKLATERS LLP,LONDON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE (3)(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Linklaters Llp Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Income Tax (International Llp, Tower 3, 27-32 Floor, One Taxation) - 3(1)(2), International Centre, Mumbai Elphinstone Mill Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (West), Mumbai – 400 013. (Pan: Aabcl5182G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

M/S ORBIT RESORTS (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 343 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम The DCIT H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh Circle 1(1), Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACO4024H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 988 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh The DCIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

M/S ORBIT RESORTS (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

Showing 1–20 of 81 · Page 1 of 5

Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act — Case Laws | BharatTax