This compilation indexes twelve income-tax rulings—spanning the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court, the Delhi High Court, and multiple ITAT benches—that engage Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rulings cover assessment years ranging from 2005-06 through 2023-24 and were pronounced between September 2021 and June 2026. The index is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law-firm researchers who need a structured starting point for research on source-rule and business-connection disputes involving non-resident entities.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference tool. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Always verify rulings against the full judgment text and check for subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on any entry below.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through or from any asset or source of income in India, or through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India, shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The Explanations to Section 9(1)(i) elaborate on what constitutes a "business connection," including the concept of a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE), and lay down rules for attribution of profits to such a connection. The provision is the primary domestic source rule applied to non-resident taxpayers and interacts closely with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) and transfer-pricing provisions.

The 12 rulings

1. Commissioner Of Income - Tax (It) - 2 vs Gemological Institute Of America Inc

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 16 June 2026
Sections engaged: 92C, 9(1)(i)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Bombay High Court heard a cluster of income-tax appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation)-2, Mumbai against Gemological Institute of America Inc., consolidated across multiple ITA numbers including ITA No. 945 of 2022, ITA No. 2306 of 2022, ITA No. 73 of 2023, ITA No. 779 of 2023, ITA No. 72 of 2023, ITA No. 2331 of 2022, and ITA No. 553 of 2023, as well as ITA (L) No. 21874 of 2022. The appeals were filed under the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and involved questions touching both source-rule characterisation and transfer-pricing provisions. Per the source preview, the matter was a multi-appeal batch pronounced on 16 June 2026; the substantive reasoning is not reproduced in the available preview.

2. Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Int Tax) - vs Mfe Formwork Technology Sdn. Bhd

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 4 May 2026
Sections engaged: 263, 9(1)(i)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal before ITAT Mumbai's "I" Bench concerned MFE Formwork Technology SDN. BHD (PAN: AAGCM4280M), a resident company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia and assessed to tax there, for Assessment Year 2022-23. Per the source preview, the assessee's group has an Indian subsidiary, MFE Formwork Technology India Pvt. Ltd. ("MFE-India"), which was alleged to act as a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) or business connection in India under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(i), and the assessee had entered into a Marketing Services Agreement (MSA) with that subsidiary. The appeal also engaged revisional jurisdiction, and the order was pronounced on 4 May 2026 after a hearing held on 20 April 2026.

3. Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd,Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 27 April 2026
Sections engaged: 9(1)(i), 153
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 8808/Mum/2025) was filed by Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd (PAN: AAXCS8364P) before ITAT Mumbai's "I" Bench, challenging an order passed on 29.09.2025 by the CIT(DRP-2) for Assessment Year 2023-24. Per the source preview, Ground No. 1 was academic in nature and did not require adjudication; Ground No. 2 was general in nature and did not require separate adjudication; and Ground Nos. 3 and 4 were interrelated and were being adjudicated through a consolidated order. The matter was heard on 18 February 2026 and pronounced on 27 April 2026.

4. Sercel Sa ,Dehradun vs DCIT, Circle-2, Ddn, Dehradun

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dehradun
Date: 13 March 2026
Sections engaged: 9(1)(i), 44B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: M/s. Sercel SA (PAN: AAOCS6358N) filed ITA No. 59/DDN/2023 before ITAT Dehradun against the final assessment order dated 15.06.2023 for Assessment Year 2020-21, which had been passed subsequent to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)/TPO vide order dated 25.05.2023. Per the source preview, during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed a refund of Rs. 59,79,820/- against TDS of an equivalent amount deducted by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) under the Act. The matter was heard on 14 January 2026 and pronounced on 13 March 2026.

5. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax , Dehradun vs Halliburton Offshore Services Inc

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dehradun
Date: 10 September 2025
Sections engaged: 44B, 9(1)(i)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three revenue appeals—ITA No. 187/DDN/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18), ITA No. 175/DDN/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17), and ITA No. 188/DDN/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19)—were filed by the DCIT against Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. (PAN: AAACH5154M) before the ITAT Delhi Bench sitting at Dehradun/New Delhi. Per the source preview, the appeals were filed against orders of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 27/07/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) and 20/08/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19), and the Tribunal noted that identical issues were involved in all three appeals. The order was pronounced in open court on 10 September 2025.

6. Hyatt International Southwest Aisa Ltd vs Additional Director Of Income Tax

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 24 July 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(i), 9(1)(vi)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Supreme Court of India heard a batch of civil appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 9766–9773 of 2025) arising from multiple SLPs filed by Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd against the Additional Director of Income Tax, covering several assessment years including AY 2009-10, AY 2011-12, and AY 2012-13, with tax effects of Rs. 85,14,156/-, Rs. 2,98,96,262/-, and Rs. 2,85,75,313/- respectively as noted in the source preview. The High Court orders under challenge were dated 22.12.2023, arising from ITAT orders dated 04.12.2019. The judgment is reported as 2025 INSC 891 and is designated as Reportable.

7. Johnson Matthey Public Limited Company vs Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 28 May 2024
Sections engaged: 144C, 9(1)(i)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Johnson Matthey Public Limited Company filed ITA 727/2018 before the Delhi High Court impugning an ITAT order dated 06 December 2017; the appeal was originally admitted by an order dated 06 March 2019. Per the source preview, the issue arises out of the receipt of guarantee charges by the appellant from its Indian subsidiaries in terms of an Intra Group Parental Guarantee and Counter Indemnity Services Agreement dated 29 March 2010, with the appellant having initially characterised the guarantee charges as interest. An additional question of law was framed by the Court on 24 November 2023, and judgment was reserved on 22 February 2024 and pronounced on 28 May 2024.

8. The Commissioner Of Income Tax - vs Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 30 November 2023
Sections engaged: 9(1)(i)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: ITA 405/2022 was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1 before the Delhi High Court against Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd., concerning Assessment Year 2015-16. Per the source preview, Augustus Capital purchased ordinary and preference shares in APL between 09.01.2013 and 14.03.2014 for a total consideration of approximately Rs. 4,91,20,000/-, representing a 2.98% interest, and sold its investment on 27.03.2015; the dispute involved characterisation and valuation of the transfer under Explanation 5 to Section 9(1)(i), which prescribes that value should refer to fair market value determined on the basis of net assets including both tangible and intangible assets. Judgment was reserved on 09.10.2023 and pronounced on 30.11.2023.

9. Tdk Electronics Ag (Formerly Known As vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 23 May 2023
Sections engaged: 9(1)(i), 115A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: TDK Electronics AG (formerly known as EPCOS AG), with PAN AAACE9787H, filed ITA No. 174/PUN/2023 before the ITAT Pune "C" Benches, emanating from the findings of DRP-3, Mumbai-2, dated 20.12.2022 for A.Y. 2020-21. Per the source preview, the international transactions at issue included rendering of business support and IT support services (Rs. 39,86,35,326/-), receipt of royalty from TDK India Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 2,59,26,836/-), and income from management/technical services (Rs. 2,06,56,928/-), aggregating Rs. 44,52,19,090/-. One of the grounds challenged the levy of income tax including interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act.

10. M/S. Excel Chemicals India Pvt vs The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1),, Ahmedabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 3 August 2022
Sections engaged: 195, 9(1)(i)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: ITA No. 1692/Ahd/2019 and C.O. No. 26/Ahd/2022 for Assessment Year 2016-17 were heard by the ITAT Ahmedabad "C" Bench, with the Revenue as appellant and M/s. Excel Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCE7150P) as respondent in the main appeal, the roles being reversed in the cross-objection. Per the source preview, the Revenue's appeal was filed against the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2. The matter was heard on 27 July 2022 and pronounced in open court on 3 August 2022.

11. Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs Asstt. CIT (International

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 8 March 2022
Sections engaged: 9(1)(i), 144C(13)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: UPS Asia Group Pte. Ltd. (PAN: AABCU5192M) filed ITA No. 1220/Mum./2021 before ITAT Mumbai's "I" Bench against the final assessment order dated 29.04.2021 for Assessment Year 2017-18, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act. Per the source preview, the computation presented in the order shows commission earned by the Indian company at USD 9,00,000 against deductible expenses of USD 8,99,000, leaving USD 1,000 taxable in the hands of the Indian company, with the broader attribution question relating to the non-resident entity's position. The matter was heard on 03.02.2022 and pronounced on 08.03.2022.

12. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Lg Philips Display Korea Co. Ltd

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 22 September 2021
Sections engaged: 9(1)(i), 147
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2, Delhi filed ITA 147/2021 (along with CM APPL. 33051/2021) before the Delhi High Court challenging an ITAT order dated 20 October 2020 in ITA No. 1885/Del/2014, whereby the Revenue's appeal was dismissed for Assessment Year 2005-06. Per the source preview, the Revenue's counsel acknowledged at the outset that the issue arising in this appeal was similar to ITA No. 145/2021 in the case of PT LP Display Indonesia (a sister concern and part of the LG Group of Companies) listed for hearing on 21 September 2021, and that the Court had dismissed that Revenue appeal; the Court consequently held that the present appeal raised no substantial questions of law and dismissed the appeal along with the application.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Persistent centrality of business connection and DAPE characterisation. Across multiple cases—including Mfe Formwork Technology (case 2), UPS Asia Group (case 11), and TDK Electronics (case 9)—a recurring issue is whether an Indian subsidiary or Indian entity constitutes a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment or business connection of the non-resident parent within the meaning of Section 9(1)(i), often examined alongside DTAA provisions.
Offshore services sector and energy companies are heavily represented. Cases involving Halliburton Offshore Services (case 5) and Sercel SA (case 4) both engage Section 9(1)(i) alongside Section 44B in the context of non-resident entities operating in or connected to India's oil and gas sector, with TDS and refund claims arising from payments made by ONGC featuring prominently in the Sercel preview.
Bundled multi-year or multi-appeal batches are common. The Hyatt International batch at the Supreme Court (case 6) covered multiple SLPs spanning several assessment years, the Gemological Institute batch at Bombay High Court (case 1) consolidated at least seven income tax appeals, and the Halliburton batch (case 5) covered three assessment years—reflecting a tendency for Section 9(1)(i) disputes to span extended periods before resolution.
Transfer-pricing provisions frequently accompany source-rule questions. Case 1 (Gemological Institute) engages Section 92C alongside Section 9(1)(i), and case 9 (TDK Electronics) involves a range of international transactions subject to transfer-pricing scrutiny. This overlap signals that attribution of income to a business connection is often litigated hand-in-hand with arm's-length pricing of the underlying transactions.
Revenue appeals against assessee-favourable CIT(A) or ITAT orders are a recurring posture. In cases 5, 10, and 12, the Revenue is the appellant challenging orders that had gone in the assessee's favour at the appellate stage, indicating that the department continues to contest adverse decisions on source-rule and PE questions through further appeals, including to High Courts.

How to use this compilation

This index is a starting point for structured legal research, not a substitute for reading the full judgment. Each entry above identifies the forum, date, sections engaged, and a brief procedural note drawn exclusively from the source preview available in the TaxNoticeAI corpus. Before placing reliance on any ruling listed here, researchers should retrieve and read the complete judgment from the original court portal (indiankanoon.org, the Supreme Court's NJDG portal, or the relevant High Court's official website) to understand the full factual matrix, the precise questions of law framed, and the operative directions of the court.

Researchers should also verify whether any ruling listed here has been subsequently stayed, reversed, or further appealed. Judicial proceedings at the ITAT level may be subject to High Court scrutiny; High Court decisions may be challenged before the Supreme Court; and Supreme Court matters may remain pending or may have been remanded. A ruling that appears final in a source preview may have a different status as of the date of your research.

Finally, where a ruling touches on DTAA interpretation alongside Section 9(1)(i), researchers should cross-check the applicable treaty text and any relevant CBDT circulars or notifications that may bear on the treaty position, as administrative guidance can affect how source-rule provisions are applied in practice for specific categories of non-resident taxpayers.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 9(1)(i) Income Tax: 12 Key Rulings on Business Connection & PE (2021–2026)