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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.9

Section 9(1)(ii) 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)(ii) is CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan (247 ITR 260), cited in 53 of the 117 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(ii)

CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan
247 ITR 260 · 2001 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Salary received by a non-resident for services rendered outside India accrues outside India and is not taxable in India. Only salary earned for work performed in India is regarded as income arising in India and is taxable.

DIT (International Taxation) v. PrahladVijendra Rao
198 Taxmann 551 · 2011 · High Court
42
citing judgments
Ranjit Kumar Bose v. ITO
18 ITD 230 · 1986 · ITAT
8
citing judgments
ACIT v. Williamson Financial Services Ltd.
196 ITD 422 · 2022 · ITAT
6
citing judgments
DIT (International Taxation) v. Prahlad Vijendra Rao
390 ITR 109 · 2017 · High Court
6
citing judgments
CIT v. Nippon
233 ITR 158 · 1998 · High Court
5
citing judgments
ITO v. Sunil Chitranjan Muncif
58 SOT 356 · ITAT
5
citing judgments
396 ITR 406 (Calcutta) 2. Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Prahlad Vijendra Rao
10 Taxmann.com 238 · 2011 · High Court
3
citing judgments
DIT (International Taxation) vs. Prahlad Vijendra Rao (2011) 239 CTR 107 (Kar.); Utanka Roy v. DIT
147 ITD 409 · 2014 · ITAT
3
citing judgments
Bholanath Pal v. ITO
23 Taxmann.com 177 · 2012 · ITAT
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 9(1)(ii)

M/S. Exl Service.Com Llc, Mumbai vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5627/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Exl Service.Com Inc, Usa

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4989/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

M/S. Exl Service.Com Llc, Mumbai vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3408/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Exl Service.Com Inc, Mumbai vs. Addl. DIT Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4183/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

ITO Ward 2 (1) Intl Taxn, Chennai vs. Mani Rajesh, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 174/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.174/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Income Tax Officer Shri Mani Rajesh बनाम Ward-2(1), International Taxation, No.35 (Old No.23), Chennai. Ranganathan Garden, / Vs. Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpr-9043-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B.V. Anil Kumar, (Jcit)-Ld.Sr. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram & Shri Rajesh (Advocates)-Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-11-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Anil Kumar, (JCIT)-Ld.Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram &
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(ii)

Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.36/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17) Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward (International Taxation) Pan: Aiwpb 3717 D Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 5(2)(a)Section 50CSection 54E

Amol Annaso Teradale, Pune vs. ITO, (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 335/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke, CAFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 6(1)Section 9(1)Section 90(4)

Amit Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1941/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: the lower authorities and is forming part of the records. It is not in dispute that the services were rendered by the assessee only in Netherlands during the year under consideration. However, the assessee was also sent on deputation to India on behalf of Akzo Netherlands. For administrative convenience, the Amit Jain vs. ACIT Page 3 of 9

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 192Section 9Section 90

Kalyana Murugan Arumugam, Vellore vs. ITO International Taxation 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2731/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 51/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Ramesh Kumar Ae, Ito बनाम/ 601, Vedanshi Apartments International Taxation-2(1) 18, 100 Ft.Road, Velachery, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 042. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aerpr-0904-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2731/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Kalyana Murugan Arumugam Ito बनाम/ No.1/44, Pillaiyar Koil Street, International Taxation-1(2) Vs. Ariyur, Vellore-632 055. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Arrpk-9359-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 53/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sundarrajan Venkatesan Ito Gri House, 2Nd Floor,New No.12, बनाम/ International Taxation-2(2) Old No.112,Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ajrps-6986-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 52/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sriram Prabhu Krishnamoorthy Ito बनाम/ 5, 3Rd Cross Street, Jayanagar, International Taxation-2(1) Vs. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram(Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Guduri(JCIT) – Ld.Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Gautam Arora, Chennai vs. DCIT(International Taxation)-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 354/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 354/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gautam Arora Dcit, (International Taxation)- Flat No. 052, Block 40 Vs 1(1), Kolkata Dlf Garden City Near Psbb Millenium School Omr, Thalambur Chennai - 603103 [Pan : Aerpa7725B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 128 (One Hundred Twenty Eight) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of Covid-19 Which Has Been Excluded By 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 250Section 5(2)

Souvik Mukherjee, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4246/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshsouvik Mukherjee, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gupta Ranjan K & Co, Ward-59(3), 208 Ansals Laxmi Deep Laxmi New Delhi Nagar, District Centre, Delhi- 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agtpm9231G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 5Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

Prasanth Nandanuru, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Chande, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192(1)Section 5(2)(a)Section 5(2)(b)Section 90

M/S Kennametal Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

ITA 1658/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(3)

Sanjay Thukral, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Sanjay Thukral, Vs. Dcit, No.66/1, C/O. Nike Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd., Cpc, Bengaluru. Olympia Building, Bagmane Tech Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aeept 4868 H Assessee By : Shri. Sharath Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 192Section 5(2)Section 6(1)

Shri Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1200/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Us, Are As Follows:

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 5(2)Section 90

JCIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Metro Tunnelling Group, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 4047/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak
Section 254(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(ii)

Paul Xavier Antonysamy, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2233/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah C.A ""For Respondent: M/s.Vijaya Prabha,JCIT,D.R
Section 15Section 5(2)Section 6(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

Gautam Harikishan Kamdar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(1)It, Mumbai

ITA 362/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 362/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 6

Ramesh Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1979/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 06.11.2017
Section 143(2)Section 6(1)Section 90

Shri Chandrashekhar Mundirka Singh, Nagpur vs. I.T.O. Ward -5(2), Nagpur

In the result these appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 5