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)

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

F.C.C. Co. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-1(3)(1), New Delhi, Civic Center

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the discussion made herein above

ITITA 583/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalit (It)A No.583/Del/2025 (Assessment Year:2022-23) F.C.C. Co. Ltd., Asst. Cit, Plot No.5, Sector-3, (International Taxation), Imt Manesar, Gurgaon, Vs. Circle-1(3)(1), Haryana-122001 New Delhi. Pan:Aabcf5381M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv., Ms. Shruti Khimta, Adv. & Sh. Harmeet Singh, Ca Department By Dr. Saurabh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax- 1(3)(1) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Dated 11.12.2024 For A.Y. 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Ld. Ao') Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-I ('Drp') Dated 11 December 2024, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Is Bad In Law & Barred By Limitation. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao/ Drp Has Erred In Assessing The Income Of The Applicant To Inr 92,88,38,447 As Against The Returned Income Of Inr 88,48,88,793 Thereby Making An Addition Of Inr 4,39,49,654. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao/ Drp Has Erred In Alleging The Existence Of A Permanent Establishment ('Pe') In The Nature Of A Fixed Place Pe & Supervisory

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(i)Section 90