Section 9 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.9

Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169), cited in 658 of the 529 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 9

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT
57 ITR 532 · 1965 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

Jindal Thermal Company Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS)
321 ITR 31 · 2010 · High Court
132
citing judgments

Until the Finance Act, 2010 amendment to Section 9(2), services rendered by a non-resident had to be rendered in India for income to accrue or arise in India, and thus attract TDS obligations.

Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT
314 ITR 309 · 2009 · Supreme Court
88
citing judgments

The obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 for payments to non-residents arises only when the sum is chargeable to tax in India. If the income is not assessable to tax in India, there is no requirement to deduct tax at source.

DIT v. Mitshubishi Corporation
130 Taxmann.com 276 · 2021 · Supreme Court
70
citing judgments

The Supreme Court's decision in DIT Vs. Mitshubishi Corporation covers the chargeability of interest under section 234B of the Act.

J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar
94 ITR 616 · 1974 · High Court
58
citing judgments

An assessee found to be the owner of bullion, etc., must explain its source. The Income Tax Officer must find the assessee to be the owner, not merely in possession.

Som Nath Maini v. CIT
306 ITR 414 · 2008 · High Court
38
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer may reject the genuineness of a transaction if the evidence provided by the assessee is not trustworthy, even if the transaction appears to be conducted through cheques or other formal means. The burden of proving the genuineness of a transaction lies primarily on the assessee.

18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT v. Cooper Engineering Ltd.
68 ITR 457 · 1968 · High Court
30
citing judgments

If a payment made by a resident to a non-resident is not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source, even if no application has been made under section 195(2). Taxability is a prerequisite for tax deduction at source.

Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
60 ITR 41 · 1966 · Supreme Court
27
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot selectively accept parts of an assessee's statement that favour the revenue while disregarding parts favourable to the assessee. If an assessee presents all records, the AO must consider all explanations, not just pick and choose.

Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd. v. CIT
105 Taxmann 742 · 1999 · Supreme Court
23
citing judgments

The scheme of TDS applies to gross sums payable, even if the entire amount isn't income for the recipient, where income tax is leviable on that sum. This includes payments to contractors where the entire sum may not be income of the recipient.

Judgments on Section 9

Venugoopal Subramanyam Raja, Kumbakonam vs. DCIT Cirle 2(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2857/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2855, 2856 & 2857/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Venugoopal Subramaniyam Raja, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 40/41, Town High School Road, Income Tax, Kumbakonam 612 001, Tamil Nadu. Circle 2(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aafpr5570F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 09.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(v)

Venugoopal Subramanyam Raja, Kumbakonam vs. DCIT Cirle 2(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2856/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2855, 2856 & 2857/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Venugoopal Subramaniyam Raja, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 40/41, Town High School Road, Income Tax, Kumbakonam 612 001, Tamil Nadu. Circle 2(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aafpr5570F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 09.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(v)

Venugoopal Subramanyam Raja, Kumbakonam vs. DCIT Cirle 2(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2855/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2855, 2856 & 2857/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Venugoopal Subramaniyam Raja, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 40/41, Town High School Road, Income Tax, Kumbakonam 612 001, Tamil Nadu. Circle 2(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aafpr5570F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 09.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(v)