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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.9

Section 9(1)(i) falls under section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 9 (Income deemed to accrue or arise in India) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 9 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 9(1)(i) is CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. (125 ITR 525), cited in 270 of the 479 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
87
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.

Evolv Clothing Company Private Limited v. ACIT
407 ITR 72 · 2018 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Payments for market surveys conducted for the purpose of procuring orders on a commission basis are not fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they are incidental to the business activity and do not involve the 'make available' clause.

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.

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)

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack vs. Barbil Mining & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Keonjhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 185/CTK/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.185/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Ocl India Limited, Vs. Ddit (International Administrative Building, Taxation), Bhubaneswar- At/Po: Rajganpur, 751007 Dist: Sundergarh, Odisha स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 1354 J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumen Adak/ Ashish Poddar, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.B.Som, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Passed In It.Appeal No.0262/2013-14, Dated 27.01.2015, Passed U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Sole Substantive Ground That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao For Treating The Assessee In Default U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act In Respect Of Payment Of Export Commission Of Rs.28,65,906/-. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Business Of Manufacturing Of Cement & Refractory Products & The Ao Found That The Assessee Paid An Amount Of Rs.28,65,906/- As Commission On 26.9.2011 To M/S International Link Corporation, Iran, A Company Registered In Tehran Without Deducting The Tax At Source As Per Section 195 Of The Act, 1961. Subsequently Notice U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak/For Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

M/S. Ocl India Limited, Sundergarh vs. DDIT(International Taxation), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 185/CTK/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.185/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Ocl India Limited, Vs. Ddit (International Administrative Building, Taxation), Bhubaneswar- At/Po: Rajganpur, 751007 Dist: Sundergarh, Odisha स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 1354 J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumen Adak/ Ashish Poddar, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.B.Som, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Passed In It.Appeal No.0262/2013-14, Dated 27.01.2015, Passed U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Sole Substantive Ground That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao For Treating The Assessee In Default U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act In Respect Of Payment Of Export Commission Of Rs.28,65,906/-. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Business Of Manufacturing Of Cement & Refractory Products & The Ao Found That The Assessee Paid An Amount Of Rs.28,65,906/- As Commission On 26.9.2011 To M/S International Link Corporation, Iran, A Company Registered In Tehran Without Deducting The Tax At Source As Per Section 195 Of The Act, 1961. Subsequently Notice U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak/For Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

ITO (It), Kolkata vs. M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2249/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2249/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O. (International Taxation), -Vs.- M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 4975 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(i)

Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2759/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J.Pardiwala, Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhanb (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

JCIT, Chennai vs. C.H.Robinson Worldwide Freight India P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1181/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1181/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: Mr.T. Banusekar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(i)Section 90

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 370/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2011-12

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 243/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2010-11

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 671/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2009-10

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT., Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2609/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2008-09

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT- Circle- 4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3108/AHD/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2006-07

Ramlord Apparels, Mumbai vs. ACIT (A) 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6636/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Ramlord Apparels, Vs. Acit – Ward 25(3), Mumbai 9A, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 Pan/Gir No. Aaafr3183M Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – Ward 25(3), Vs. M/S. Ramlord Apparels, Mumbai 9A, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 Pan/Gir No. Aaafr3183M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

ADIT Circle 2 (1) vs. Reach Networks Hongkong Ltd

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Reach Networks Hong Kong Ltd vs. DDIT Central-2 (1)

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 739/DEL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

ITO, Chennai vs. M/S. Cargoplan International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3140/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Mr.G.Seetharaman, CA
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 40Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

Maideen Pitchai Rawther Peer Mohammed, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2321/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: 25.01.2017
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 4Section 40Section 9(1)(i)

Cairn Uk Holding Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

DDIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai vs. E- Bay International Ag, Mumbai

In the result, all three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 699/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shaktijit Dey (Jm)

Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT (It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S, Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1798/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri. Jasbir chauhanFor Respondent: Shri. Porul Kaka
Section 144CSection 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

Linklaters LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Indo Amines Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2010-11 &

ITA 3039/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Premanand JFor Respondent: Shri M.N. Nandgaokar
Section 195Section 40Section 5(2)(b)