Section 9(1)

Section 9(1) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 9(1), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• CIT v Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  I am a foreign company on a turnkey contract. I fabricated the platform abroad and only installed it in India. Can the Department tax the offshore fabrication profit because the contract was one indivisible whole?
  No, on these facts. The Supreme Court held that an installation permanent establishment comes into existence only at the installation stage, which is after the equipment has been sold and delivered abroad, so profits on the offshore supply are not attributable to it. Under Article 7 what is taxed is not the real profit but the hypothetical profit the permanent establishment would have made as a wholly independent enterprise, so nothing can be attributed on the supply unless the Department shows the price was not at arm's length or included an element for the establishment's services. On quantum, ten per cent of the Indian gross receipts was upheld.
• Barendra Prasad Ray v ITO Supreme CourtHelps department
  A foreign professional worked on our matter in India but we neither briefed him nor paid him. Can we be treated as his agent and made liable for his tax?
  Yes, on these facts. The Supreme Court held that 'business connection' in section 9(1) is not confined to trade or manufacture and takes in a professional connection. Business means an activity carried on continuously and systematically by applying labour or skill to earn income, and professions are generally regarded as businesses. The connection between the Calcutta solicitors and the English barrister was real and intimate, not casual: he argued their case with their consent, alongside their Indian counsel, and could not have earned the fees without associating himself with them. The order treating them as his agent under section 163(1) stood.
• Statutory position — section 9A: an offshore fund managed from India has no business connection here, but only if every condition in section 9A(3) is met CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client is an offshore fund that has moved its portfolio manager to Mumbai. The Assessing Officer says the manager is a business connection and the whole fund is now taxable in India. Is there a safe harbour?
  Yes, but it is a conditional one. Section 9A(1) provides that, notwithstanding section 9(1), the fund management activity carried out through an eligible fund manager acting on behalf of an eligible investment fund shall not constitute a business connection in India of that fund, and section 9A(2) provides that, notwithstanding section 6, the fund shall not be said to be resident in India merely because the manager undertaking fund management activities on its behalf is situated in India. The protection is available only where the fund answers the definition in section 9A(3), which carries thirteen lettered conditions, (a) to (m), every one of which has to be satisfied.
• Statutory position — s.195: tax is deducted only on a sum “chargeable under the provisions of this Act”, and Explanation 2 fixes who owes the duty, not what is taxable CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  In March 2026 I remitted a fee to a company outside India without deducting anything, because I did not think any part of it was taxable here. The Assessing Officer now says section 195 obliged me to deduct on the whole remittance, or at least to apply to him before paying. Does section 195 say that — and since the new Act has come in, which Act governs my payment at all?
  Which Act governs is settled by one date: on the CBDT's transition FAQ, where the earlier of credit or payment falls on or before 31 March 2026 the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies, and where it falls on or after 1 April 2026 the Income-tax Act, 2025 applies instead — there, the deduction duty sits in section 393(2), Table, Serial No. 17. So a March 2026 remittance is a section 195 question. Section 195(1) does not tax a remittance; it attaches a deduction duty to “any interest … or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act” paid to a non-resident or a foreign company, at the time of credit or of payment, whichever is earlier. Those five words are the gateway, and in GE India Technology Centre the Supreme Court held on 9 September 2010 that they cannot be read out of the sub-section: a payer who is fairly certain that no part of the sum is chargeable in India may make that determination himself and is not obliged to apply under section 195(2) first. Section 195(2) is the payer's application where a composite payment is partly chargeable; section 197 is a different route, taken by the recipient. Sub-section (6) requires information about every sum, whether or not chargeable, in the form prescribed by rule 37BB — which is why the bank asks for a 15CA even where nothing is deductible.
• Statutory position — s.160: the five, and only five, classes of representative assessee, and what Explanations 1 and 2 do to an unwritten trust CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer has issued a notice describing me as the 'representative assessee' of a family trust. Who can lawfully be made a representative assessee, and does being called one make me the assessee?
  Section 160(1) is an exhaustive list of five classes and nobody outside it can be made a representative assessee: (i) the agent of a non-resident, in respect of income of the non-resident specified in section 9(1), including a person treated as an agent under section 163; (ii) the guardian or manager of a minor, lunatic or idiot who is entitled to receive or is in receipt of the income on that person's behalf; (iii) the Court of Wards, the Administrator-General, the Official Trustee or any receiver or manager (including any person, whatever his designation, who in fact manages property on behalf of another) appointed by or under an order of a court; (iv) a trustee appointed under a trust declared by a duly executed instrument in writing, whether testamentary or otherwise, including a wakf deed valid under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913; and (v) a trustee appointed under an oral trust. Section 160(2) then says that every representative assessee shall be deemed to be an assessee for the purposes of the Act, so yes — you are an assessee, with an assessee's rights of appeal as well as an assessee's exposure.
• Statutory position — s.163: who may be treated as the agent of a non-resident, the broker proviso, and the s.163(2) hearing that cannot be skipped CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer wants to treat my company as the agent of a foreign supplier because we have dealings with it. On what basis can he, and what am I entitled to before he does it?
  Section 163(1) defines 'agent', in relation to a non-resident, as including any person in India who is employed by or on behalf of the non-resident; or who has any business connection with the non-resident; or from or through whom the non-resident is in receipt of any income, whether directly or indirectly; or who is the trustee of the non-resident — and it includes also any other person, whether resident or non-resident, who has acquired by means of a transfer a capital asset in India. Section 163(2) is a hard condition precedent: 'No person shall be treated as the agent of a non-resident unless he has had an opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer as to his liability to be treated as such.' The section also carries an Explanation providing that for the purposes of sub-section (1) the expression 'business connection' has the meaning assigned to it in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(i); it is absent from the editions up to 2001, so it was inserted after that year.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.