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)

Raytheon Ebasco Overseas Ltd, Bangalore vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 8567/MUM/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.8567/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Raytheon Ebasco Overseas Ltd. Dy.Cit-11 C/O, Pricewaterhouse Coopers Circle-2(1) Private Ltd., 6The Floor, Tower “D”, Vs. Mumbai. The Millenia, 1&2 Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008 Pan No.Aafcr 0222 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Dhanesh Bafna िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chauhan सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2016 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5974/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.2882/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai-400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5974&5973/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Larsen & Toubro Vs. Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vinita Menon ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) Of I.T.Act, 1961. 2. As The Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. 3. The Grievance Of The Revenue In Its Appeal I.E

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5973/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.2882/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai-400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5974&5973/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Larsen & Toubro Vs. Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vinita Menon ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) Of I.T.Act, 1961. 2. As The Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. 3. The Grievance Of The Revenue In Its Appeal I.E

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2882/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.2882/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai-400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5974&5973/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Larsen & Toubro Vs. Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vinita Menon ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) Of I.T.Act, 1961. 2. As The Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. 3. The Grievance Of The Revenue In Its Appeal I.E

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)