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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.9

Section 9(1)(vii) 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)(vii) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 of the 1,640 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii)

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

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.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

DIT v. Ericsson A.B
343 ITR 470 · 2012 · High Court
256
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Judgments on Section 9(1)(vii)

ACIT- 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Forum Homes Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7531/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri. Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am Acit – 6(1)(2), Mumbai Forum Homes Private Limited Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar 1St Floor, Serendipty G Block, Bkc, Bhavan, Mk Road, Churchgate, Vs. Near Ongc Colony, Patthar Nagar, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaccf1005F (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shriram S : Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) Respondent By : 09.03.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Revenue Arises Out Of The Order Dated 04.09.2025 Of Learned Addl/Jcit (A) Prayagraj (‘Ld. Addl. Cit(A)’ For Short), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2016-17. 2. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration In The Present Appeal Is, Whether The Payments Made By The Assessee To Two Singapore Based Entities Towards Consultancy & Architectural & Structural Design Are In The Nature Of Fees For Technical Services (Fts) U/S. 91(Vii) Of The Act Read With Article 12(4) Of The India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Dtaa) & Whether The Alleged Failure On The Part Of The Forum Homes Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri Shriram SFor Respondent: 09.03.2026
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 91