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)

Elve Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Elve Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6229/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

Elve Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4108/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)Section 40