This compilation indexes 12 rulings — from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and various High Courts — that engaged Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the period August 2025 to April 2026. The rulings span disputes involving international technology companies, telecommunications operators, sports broadcasting rights, and equipment leasing entities, reflecting the breadth of contexts in which royalty characterisation arises. The compilation is intended for use by in-house tax teams, law firm researchers, and Big-4 associates tracking the current judicial landscape on Section 9(1)(vi).

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference tool, not legal or tax advice. Readers should verify all rulings against the full text of the relevant judgment and check for any subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on them.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that income by way of royalty shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India if it is payable by a person who is a resident, or by a non-resident where the royalty is in respect of any right, property, or information used for the purposes of a business or profession carried on in India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source in India. The Explanation to the section defines "royalty" to mean consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for, among other things, the transfer of all or any rights in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process, trade mark, copyright, literary, artistic or scientific work, or the use of any patent, trade mark, copyright, industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. The scope of this definition — and whether particular payments fall within it — has been contested extensively in the context of software licensing, IP sub-licensing, telecommunications bandwidth, sports broadcasting, and equipment leasing, and forms the central subject-matter of all 12 rulings indexed below.

The 12 rulings

1. Sky High Xxxiv Leasing Company vs ACIT International Taxation Circle

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 30 April 2026
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT under ITA 1308/MUM/2025, along with a stay application (SA No. 46/Mum/2025), arising out of the same ITA, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The text preview also references companion matters ITA 1327 and 1328/MUM/2025 (with SA Nos. 45 and 44/Mum/2025) for Assessment Year 2022-23, involving a related entity, Lunar Aircraft Trading Company Limited; the full substantive reasoning is not captured in the available source preview.

2. Cognizant Technology vs The Asst. Commr. Of Income Tax

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 28 April 2026
Sections engaged: 10B, 40(a), 9(1)(vi)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Tax Case (T.C. No. 597 of 2008) was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'A', dated 31 December 2007 in ITA No. 1159/MDS/2007. The assessee, engaged in software development and export, had claimed exemption under Section 10B for the assessment year 2002-2003 on a sum of Rs. 149.47 crores; the Assessing Officer had reduced the exemption in respect of expenditure incurred in foreign currency and part of telecommunication charges, and the full reasoning of the High Court's final order is not available in the source preview.

3. Reliance Jio Infocomm Usa Inc., Texas vs DCIT (It) 4 (1) (1), Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 17 April 2026
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (I.T.A. No. 2991/Mum/2023) was filed before the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in respect of Assessment Year 2020-21, with the date of hearing recorded as 24 March 2026 and the date of pronouncement as 17 April 2026. The text preview reflects that the Tribunal's order references a volume of precedents on the characterisation of telecommunications-related payments, including multiple decisions concerning Vodafone Idea Ltd. before the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, as well as ITAT rulings on Telefonica and other telecom entities; the dispositive reasoning on the Section 9(1)(vi) question is not reproduced in the available source preview.

4. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh, Dehradun

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dehradun
Date: 18 February 2026
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 250/DDN/2025) arises from an order passed under Section 250 of the Act dated 16 September 2025 by CIT(A)-Noida-2, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer had held that receipts on account of IP Charges received from Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., amounting to Rs. 77,66,43,479/-, were in the nature of "Royalty" under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, and treated the same as taxable; the substantive outcome recorded by the Tribunal is not available in the source preview.

5. The Commissioner Of Income Tax - vs Sri Lanka Cricket

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 15 January 2026
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In ITA 4/2026, the Revenue's counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present case was squarely covered by the Delhi High Court's earlier judgment in CIT (International Taxation) v. Fox Network Group Singapore Pte. Ltd. ([2024] 158 taxmann.com 434 (Delhi)), which had in turn followed CIT v. Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. ((2014) 51 taxmann.com 550 (Delhi)). The text preview reproduces the Court's reference to the conclusion in Fox Network that once a live telecast is found not to fall within the ambit of the expression "work," it would be erroneous to treat the income derived therefrom as royalty; the full operative order is not reproduced in the available source preview.

6. M/S Lg Electronics India P.Ltd vs Director Of Income Tax & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 24 December 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 264
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (W.P.(C) 15181/2004) challenged the order dated 27 April 2004 passed by the respondents under Section 264 of the Act, wherein the payment made by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. to Global Cricket Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (GCC) was treated as including elements for the booking of space and for the right of use of the trademark of the International Cricket Council (ICC). The respondents had apportioned two-thirds of the total payment made to GCC towards advertisement by way of booking, with the characterisation of the remainder engaging the Section 9(1)(vi) question; the final operative holding on the writ is not available in the source preview.

7. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dxc Technology Services (Singapore)

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 6 November 2025
Sections engaged: 143(3), 144C, 9(1)(vi)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Revenue filed three appeals (ITA 581/2025, ITA 582/2025, and ITA 574/2025) before the Delhi High Court challenging an ITAT order dated 10 October 2023, which related to four appeals covering Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 for DXC Technology Services Singapore Pte Ltd. (earlier known as HP Services Singapore Pte Ltd.). The High Court condoned substantial delays in refiling — 566 days in one application and 553 days in another — before proceeding to hear the Revenue's challenge; the substantive reasoning on the Section 9(1)(vi) question is not reproduced in the available source preview.

8. Dy. Commississioner Of Income Tax vs Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dehradun
Date: 28 October 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 44B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Revenue filed six captioned appeals (ITA Nos. 163 to 168/DDN/2024) before the Dehradun Bench of the ITAT against orders of CIT(A)-Noida-2 dated 31 July 2024, covering Assessment Years 2016-17 through 2021-22 for Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Limited (PAN: AAACW1524G). The text preview notes that all the above appeals were described as having identical issues; the substantive ground engaging Section 9(1)(vi) and the other sections listed is not detailed in the available source preview.

9. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ibm Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 17 September 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 14(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This income tax appeal (ITA No. 680 of 2023, NC: 2025:KHC:37114-DB) was filed under Section 260-A of the Act arising out of the ITAT order dated 23 August 2021 in ITA No. 3229/BANG/2018, for Assessment Year 2014-15, in the case of M/S IBM Singapore Pte Ltd. (PAN: AACC12917B). The Revenue prayed for the Court to decide the question of law and set aside the ITAT's appellate order; the substantive reasoning and the Court's final determination on the Section 9(1)(vi) question are not reproduced in the available source preview.

10. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ibm Singapore Pte Ltd

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 20 August 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This income tax appeal (ITA No. 664 of 2023, NC: 2025:KHC:32367-DB) was filed under Section 260-A of the Act arising out of the ITAT order dated 11 October 2021 in ITA No. 409/BANG/2018, for Assessment Year 2013-14, in the case of M/S IBM Singapore Pte Ltd. (PAN: AACCI2917B). The appeal was brought by the Principal Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Kormangala, Bangalore, seeking to set aside the ITAT's appellate order; the operative reasoning on the characterisation question under the sections listed is not available in the source preview.

11. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Kddi Corporation

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 19 August 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi), 201
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This income tax appeal (ITA No. 233 of 2024, NC: 2025:KHC:32034-DB) was filed under Section 260-A of the Act, praying to set aside the ITAT 'C' Bench, Bangalore order dated 15 April 2024 in IT(IT)A No. 101/BANG/2024, for Assessment Year 2014-15, concerning M/S KDDI Corporation, Japan (PAN: AAICK596ID). The appeal was brought before the Karnataka High Court by the Revenue authorities; the substantive reasoning on the Section 9(1)(vi) and Section 201 questions is not reproduced in the available source preview.

12. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Synamedia Limited

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 12 August 2025
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vi)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This income tax appeal (ITA No. 698 of 2023, NC: 2025:KHC:31121-DB) was filed under Section 260-A of the Act arising out of the ITAT 'C' Bench, Bangalore order dated 14 February 2022 in ITA No. 3350/BANG/2018, for Assessment Year 2014-15, in the case of M/S Synamedia Limited (formerly known as NDS Limited, PAN: AABCN 2524L). The Revenue sought to set aside the ITAT's order in the assessee's favour; the substantive reasoning on the Section 9(1)(vi) question is not reproduced in the available source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Concentration in international taxation circles. Every case in this compilation involves a non-resident or foreign entity, and the majority of the disputes are handled by specialised international taxation circles and benches — Mumbai, Dehradun, and Bangalore ITAT benches, and the Delhi and Karnataka High Courts. This reflects that Section 9(1)(vi) litigation is overwhelmingly an international tax phenomenon in the current period.
Technology, telecom, and media payments dominate. The fact-patterns across the 12 rulings cluster into a small number of recurring industry categories: software and IT services (IBM Singapore, DXC Technology, Cognizant, Synamedia/NDS), telecommunications bandwidth and infrastructure (Reliance Jio Infocomm USA, Weatherford Oil Tools), sports broadcasting and media rights (Sri Lanka Cricket, LG Electronics/ICC trademark), and equipment leasing with IP components (Sky High Xxxiv Leasing, Halliburton Worldwide). The royalty vs. non-royalty boundary in each of these sectors continues to generate fresh litigation.
Revenue as appellant at High Court level. In the High Court matters indexed (Cases 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12), the Revenue (Commissioner or Principal Commissioner) is consistently the appellant, suggesting that ITAT decisions in the relevant period more frequently favoured assessees on the Section 9(1)(vi) characterisation question, prompting the Revenue to seek High Court review under Section 260-A.
Recurring reliance on precedent chains. The text preview for the Sri Lanka Cricket matter (Case 5) explicitly notes that the issue was said to be covered by an existing line of Delhi High Court authority (Fox Network Group Singapore, following Delhi Race Club), and the Reliance Jio matter (Case 3) references an extensive body of telecom-sector precedents. This pattern — of cases being disposed of by reference to settled precedent chains rather than fresh analysis — appears to be a recurring feature at the High Court stage in this area.
Multi-year and multi-appeal bundling. Several matters cover multiple assessment years in a single proceeding: the Weatherford Oil Tools case spans Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2021-22 across six ITA numbers, and the DXC Technology matter covers Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 across three appeals. This consolidation of years is a practical feature of prolonged Section 9(1)(vi) disputes involving ongoing commercial arrangements.

How to use this compilation

This index is intended as a starting point for case identification, not as a substitute for reading the full judgment. Because all 12 entries carry an outcome of "Outcome not specified in source," researchers must access the complete text of each ruling — through indiankanoon.org, the relevant High Court portal, or the ITAT e-filing portal — before drawing any conclusions about what was held, and on what grounds. Headnotes and short excerpts are frequently insufficient to assess whether a ruling is directly applicable to a different fact situation.

Researchers should additionally check whether any of the rulings listed have been the subject of subsequent proceedings: High Court decisions may have been appealed to the Supreme Court, ITAT rulings may have been challenged under Section 260-A, and interim stays may be in place that affect the operative effect of a decision. The date of this compilation (June 2026) means that developments after the dates of individual judgments are not reflected here.

Finally, where a ruling references CBDT circulars, notifications amending the Explanation to Section 9(1)(vi), or India's treaty network (particularly the definition of "royalties" in applicable DTAAs), those instruments should be checked independently. The statutory definition of royalty and the treaty definition frequently diverge, and many of the disputes in this compilation turn precisely on that divergence. No CBDT circular or DTAA provision is quoted or interpreted in this index.

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)(vi) Royalty & Income Tax: 12 Recent Rulings (2025–2026)