“non-resident”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(30) / Section 6 / ITR Forms3,736 judgments

SHRI RAM KRUPA MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 315/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2021-22

Section 154Section 154(3)Section 195Section 200ASection 90Section 90(4)

Agreement (DTAA). Shri Ram Krupa Medicare Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT, AY- 2021-22 3 4. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the non-resident shareholders had duly furnished valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) and Form No. 10F and thereby fully complying with the conditions laid down under Section ... which the dividend was taxable at the rate of 5% only. The assessee had deducted TDS on the dividend payment made to the non-resident shareholders at the rate of 5%, as stipulated in Article 10 of India-Mauritius DTTA. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) had rejected the appeal

DEV PRAKASH NIHALANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INTL. TAXN., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2005/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarvs. Dev Prakash Nihalani The Ito 702, Popular Domin Ward-1, Intl.Taxn. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad – 380 Satellite 009 Ahmedabad – 380 054 Pan No. : Agdpn 6459 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

condoned. Dev Prakash Nihalani vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2015-16 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and non-resident engaged in the business of textiles at U.A.E. since 1985. The assessee has various deposits in NRI account and all the funds were transferred

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

fact, every country prescribes some artificial\nrestrictions of this kind, and if the assessee's interpretation is to be followed,\nit would mean that non-resident companies would be treated differently from\ncompanies in a similar business. In this regard, the AO also referred to the\ncommentary ... nHon'ble Court observes that:\ni. The provisions of Section 44C of the Act are special provisions which are\napplicable to non-resident assesses and override the provisions of Section\n28 to 43A of the Act owing to it being a non-obstante provision. [Para 43]\nii. These provisions

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

MOUNA SELVARAJ,CHENNAI vs. AO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3836/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270A

Assessment Year (A.Y.)\n2018-19.\n2. The brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that the assessee is an\nindividual and non-resident Indian, who has been residing in USA since prior to A.Y.2018-\n19. The assessee has not filed her income tax return for the relevant ... प्रतिनिधि/DR\n5. गार्ड फाईल/GF\nSd/-\n(एस. आर. रघुनाथा)\n(S. R. RAGHUNATHA)\nलेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member", "summary": {"facts": "The assessee, a non-resident Indian, failed to file her income tax return for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) re-opened the case, treated a property sale

KYORI OREMIN LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2037/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2037/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Kyori Oremin Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 081. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aadck1617K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/sec.40(a)(i) without verifying the fact whether all the payments are made by the assessee to non-resident falling under the provisions of sec.40(a)(i) or sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act as it appears that in the computation of total income

NATHAN ANIL RAO, MUMBAI vs. THE ITO -CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 8666/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Soni, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

Limited Pest Control Private Limited to M/s Rentokil Initial to M/s Rentokil Initial Asia Pacific Management PTE Ltd., Asia Pacific Management PTE Ltd., a non-resident entity based in resident entity based in Singapore for a total consideration of Rs.20,00,06 Singapore for a total consideration of Rs.20 ... submitting documents as time was required to collate those 5 Nathan Anil Rao documents from various sources including non documents from various sources including non-resident buyer. resident buyer. This exercise was time consuming as the documents were This exercise was time consuming as the documents were This exercise

DENSO INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6688/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6688/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Denso International India Private Ld. Dcit, Limited, Vs. Circle 7(1), B-1/D-4, Ground Floor,Mohan C.R. Building, Delhi. Cooperative Estate,Delhi. Pan No.Aabcd1103D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

India-Japan tax treaty of Rs.73,17,707/-, resulting in excess DDT of Rs.77,24,055/-. • The dividend income in the hands of the non-resident shareholder was taxable only at the treaty rate and, therefore, excess DDT had been paid by the Company. Despite the specific raising of this ... Japan, and paid DDT of about Rs. 1.50 crore under section 115-O at the domestic rate. • Since the dividend was paid to a non-resident shareholder resident of Japan, the taxability of such dividend had to be examined in light of Article 10 of the India- Japan DTAA, under

THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44C

nPackage Powerink (supra) has been pleased to hold that no interest under section\n234B of the Act can be levied where the payment to non-resident payee is subject\nto tax deduction at source. In the present case, the Assessing Officer himself had\nadmitted by grossing up the ECB interest ... nrestricts the head office expenditure. Section 44C provides for\nthree parameters in the matter of computing deduction for head\noffice expenditure incurred by a non-resident. Section 44C\nspecifically states that deduction for the head office expenditure\nshould be restricted to the least of the three parameters. The\nexpression used

GE ENGINE SERVICES LLC,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3700/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)

nand/or Article 12 of the India-US DTAA. Further, the assessee submitted that as per\nprovisions of Section 90(2) of the Act, a non-resident has the option of being taxed\nin India under provisions of the Act or provisions of the DTAA entered between\nIndia and the country ... residence of such non-resident, whichever is more beneficial\nand accordingly, the Assessee sought to invoke the beneficial provisions of the\nIndia-US DTAA, and submitted its contentions in support of its position that the\nreceipts from repair and overhaul support received from Indian customers are not\ntaxable in India

ELARA INDIA OPPORTUNITIES FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5859/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

other\nincome/residuary income is taxable in India. It further held\nthat incase of irregularity/money laundering, section 68\nwould be applicable even to a non-resident and not the\nArticles of DTAA\nIn the above factual matrix of the case, it is to be noted that\nthe assessee being

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

paid by the appellant:\n5.5.4.1. The extract of the core section 195 is produced below:\n195. (1) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a\ncompany, or to a foreign company, any interest (not being interest referred\nto in section 194LB or section 194LC ... interest, royalty, fees for\ntechnical services.\n5.5.4.3. As per the provisions of Section 5(2)(b) of the Act, the total income\nof a non-resident also includes all income which accrues or arises or is\ndeemed to accrue or arise in India to the non-resident.\n5.5.4.4. To check

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

extract of the core section 195 is produced below: Diebold India Private Limited 195. (1) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest (not being interest referred to in section 194LB or section 194LC) 92 (or section 194LD ... interest, royalty, fees for technical services. 5.5.4.3. As per the provisions of Section 5(2)(b) of the Act, the total income of a non-resident also includes all income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in India to the non-resident. 5.5.4.4. To check

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

extract of the core section 195 is produced below:\n6\nDiebold India Private Limited\n195. (1) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a\ncompany, or to a foreign company, any interest (not being interest referred\nto in section 194LB or section 194LC) 92 (or section ... interest, royalty, fees for\ntechnical services.\n5.5.4.3. As per the provisions of Section 5(2)(b) of the Act, the total income\nof a non-resident also includes all income which accrues or arises or is\ndeemed to accrue or arise in India to the non-resident.\n5.5.4.4. To check

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOS filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

AMITH VISHNAV GUDIMELLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1705/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

learned CIT(A) while passing the impugned order. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee was a non-resident during the relevant period and was employed onsite with Cognizant 4 ITA.No.1705/Hyd./2025 Technology Solutions US Corp. During the overseas employment in the United States

MRIGESH GAURAV,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD 42(2)(4),, MUMBAI

ITA 7988/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5(2)Section 6

case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) erred in adjudicating the appeal although the appellant\nhad submitted that he was a Non-Resident during the year and\nthe appeal should be transferred to the CIT(A) handling\nInternational Taxation.\nGround No. 2:\nOn the facts and circumstances ... case and in law, the Ld.\nADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in treating the salary earned for\nservices rendered outside India by a non-resident is liable to\ntax without considering section 90 of the Act and also the\nprovisions of Article 16(1) of the India-USA Double Taxation\nAvoidance

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 6166/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kant, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)

Section 135Section 250Section 40Section 80G

deleting the addition without justifying that the\nAO had rightly disallowed 100% of provisions made under Section 40(a)(i)\n(payments to non-residents without TDS); and 30% of the provisions under\nSection 40(a)(ia) (residents, where TDS was not deducted or deposited),\nas per the mandate

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2403/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

nITA No.2403/Mum/2024 (Revenue's appeal, AY 2018-19)\n4. The revenue has taken the following grounds:\n“1. Disallowance of reinsurance premium paid/payable to non-resident reinsurance.\n2. Disallowance of the provision towards claims incurred but nor reported (IBNR) and claims\nincurred but not enough reported (IBNER).\n3. Disallowance ... nrevenue contended that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source on\nreinsurance premium paid to non-resident insurers towards cession of risk. It was\nalleged that such payment was in contravention of section 101A(7) read with\nsection 2(9) of the Insurance Act. On this basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 2398/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

under section 234B and section 234D of the Act.” 4. The revenue has taken the following grounds: “1. Disallowance of reinsurance premium paid/payable to non-resident reinsurance. 2. Disallowance of the provision towards claims incurred but nor reported (IBNR) and claims incurred but not enough reported (IBNER). TATA AIG General ... revenue contended that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source on reinsurance premium paid to non-resident insurers towards cession of risk. It was alleged that such payment was in contravention of section 101A(7) read with section 2(9) of the Insurance Act. On this basis

Showing 1–20 of 3,736 · Page 1 of 187

...