← All Phrases

“non-resident”

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

The decision most relied on for non-resident is GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 456), cited in 663 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on non-resident

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.
125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court
270
citing judgments

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT
239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court
243
citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

ONGC v. CIT
376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

Judgments citing non-resident

Apl Logistics Vascor Automotive Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Delhi

ITA 2070/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Apl Logistics Vascor Automotive Vs Ao, Private Limited, Cpc, 4Th Floor, Sewa Tower, Plot No.19, Bengaluru. Anath Road, Udyog Vihar Iv, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015. Pan: Aakca3524C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2018-19/10026768 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 08.10.2020 Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Cpc Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 40Section 56(2)Section 69

first place. iv) That the assessee was not subject to provisions of section 56(2) (viib) as the receipt was from a non-resident and such transactions were beyond the scope of section 56(2) (viib) which covered only resident payers. Rather the transaction made by the assessee ... making an addition of INR 9,31,50,000 under section 56(2)(viib) with respect to share capital issued to non-resident shareholder when section 56(2)(viib) was never applicable to non-residents. 5. That the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before

Kunal Gupta, Six Thapar Co. Mumbai vs. CIT(A), CIT(A) Mumbai

In the result, (a) the appeal No

ITA 4499/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.AR
Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

sake of convenience. 3. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and he was deriving interest income of Rs.30.83 lakhs during the financial year relevant to AY 2016-17. Since the assessee did not file return ... assessee before the Ld CIT(A) all the notices were sent to his old e-mail id. Since the assessee is a non-resident, it is quite possible that the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the AO. Accordingly, we are of the view that there

Kunal Gupta, Six Thapar Co. Mumbai vs. CIT(A), CIT(A) Mumbai

In the result, (a) the appeal No

ITA 4498/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.AR
Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

sake of convenience. 3. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and he was deriving interest income of Rs.30.83 lakhs during the financial year relevant to AY 2016-17. Since the assessee did not file return ... assessee before the Ld CIT(A) all the notices were sent to his old e-mail id. Since the assessee is a non-resident, it is quite possible that the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the AO. Accordingly, we are of the view that there

Kunal Gupta, Six Thapar Co. Mumbai vs. CIT (A), CIT(A) Mumbai

In the result, (a) the appeal No

ITA 4497/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.AR
Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

sake of convenience. 3. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and he was deriving interest income of Rs.30.83 lakhs during the financial year relevant to AY 2016-17. Since the assessee did not file return ... assessee before the Ld CIT(A) all the notices were sent to his old e-mail id. Since the assessee is a non-resident, it is quite possible that the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the AO. Accordingly, we are of the view that there

Rita Sunil Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–
Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

144C (13) read with section 147 read with section 254 of The Income Tax Act 1961 [ the Act] passed on 3/10/2023 in case of non-resident assessee determining total income at ₹ 3,597,395 denying claim of deduction under section 54 of the act. ITA number 4070/M/2023 is filed ... raised in ITA number 4070/M/2023 05. in the case of Mrs. Rita Sunil shah. Brief facts of the case show thatthe assessee is a non-resident 06. individual. Information was received from The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 18 (2), Mumbai that the assessee has sold flat number

Sunil Amritlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4069/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–
Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

144C (13) read with section 147 read with section 254 of The Income Tax Act 1961 [ the Act] passed on 3/10/2023 in case of non-resident assessee determining total income at ₹ 3,597,395 denying claim of deduction under section 54 of the act. ITA number 4070/M/2023 is filed ... raised in ITA number 4070/M/2023 05. in the case of Mrs. Rita Sunil shah. Brief facts of the case show thatthe assessee is a non-resident 06. individual. Information was received from The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 18 (2), Mumbai that the assessee has sold flat number

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Internationa Taxation)-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3416/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 270A

issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act through National Faceless Assessment Centre the ld.Counsel submitted that faceless assessment cannot be applied to the Non-resident Indian. The ld. Counsel submitted that CBDT issued notification treating assessment under Central Charge and International Taxation Charge as separate classes of cases excluding ... Reference was made to non-discrimination clause in the Treaty, as per which there should not be any discrimination between the domestic and the non-resident company. The Tribunal, however, referred to the Explanation in the Section 90, inserted in the IT Act with retrospective effect from

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jaymala Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

ITA 2719/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 68

shares. In this case what is being sought to be taxed be taxed is capital not received from a non received from a non-resident i.e. premium allegedly not resident i.e. premium allegedly not received on application of ALP. Therefore, absent express legislation, no on application of ALP. Therefore, absent

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. Itc Limited, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. that the assessee had entered into agreements with non-resident agents for selling its products outside India and the commission agents rendered their services entirely outside India and no part of the services were ever ... Section 195 of the Act provide that where a person responsible for making payment of any sum chargeable to tax in India to a non-resident not being a company or to a foreign company are required to deduct tax at source at the rates in force

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. Itc Limited, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. that the assessee had entered into agreements with non-resident agents for selling its products outside India and the commission agents rendered their services entirely outside India and no part of the services were ever ... Section 195 of the Act provide that where a person responsible for making payment of any sum chargeable to tax in India to a non-resident not being a company or to a foreign company are required to deduct tax at source at the rates in force

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1166/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. that the assessee had entered into agreements with non-resident agents for selling its products outside India and the commission agents rendered their services entirely outside India and no part of the services were ever ... Section 195 of the Act provide that where a person responsible for making payment of any sum chargeable to tax in India to a non-resident not being a company or to a foreign company are required to deduct tax at source at the rates in force

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1068/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. that the assessee had entered into agreements with non-resident agents for selling its products outside India and the commission agents rendered their services entirely outside India and no part of the services were ever ... Section 195 of the Act provide that where a person responsible for making payment of any sum chargeable to tax in India to a non-resident not being a company or to a foreign company are required to deduct tax at source at the rates in force

Home Credit International A.S., Czech Republic vs. Assistant. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2068/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

order due to non- implementation of the directions of learned DRP. 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Czech Republic and a tax resident of that country. As stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged ... Guide India Ltd. v. ACTT (2 012125 taxmann.00131 25 (Minn ITAT) In absence of control and possession of user over equipment, amount paid to non-resident company cannot be held to be royalty for use or right to use any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. Relevant extract has been reproduced

Goldman Sachs International, C/O Ernst and Young LLP Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) (International Taxation) - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 565/BANG/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India ; or (c) a person who is a non-resident, where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person in India

Goldman Sachs International, C/O Ernst Young LLP, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) (International Taxation) - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 564/BANG/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India ; or (c) a person who is a non-resident, where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person in India

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Ramu Palaniappan, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1526/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1526/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Bharathi Krishnaprasad, CA and Ms. Krishna Laasya, Advocate
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 69

Since, the transactions are not reflecting in the bank account statements of the assessee.” 3. The brief facts are that, the assessee is a non-resident individual and has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 21.08.2016. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee

Volvo Information Technology Ab, Sweden vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2169/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

Article 12 of India – Sweden Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 5. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Sweden and a tax resident of that country. As observed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is a part

Girish Narayan Bherwani, Khar West Mumbai vs. ITO It 1(1)(1), Scindia House Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3803/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Girish Narayan Bherwani Vs. Income Tax Officer (It)–1(1)(1) 11, 2Nd Floor, Sudhama Sadan Rom No. 114, 1St Floor 3Rd Road, Khar West 400052 Scindia House, Ballard Estate Pier, Mumbai 400038 Pan/Gir No. : Anwpb5554B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishant RuparelFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69B

notice of the AO that there was no evidence that the assessee had paid any on- money. It was also explained that being a non-resident Indian the question of making any cash payment does not find any support in the case of the assessee. Further, the AO has also

Shri Virendra Mughumal Jangla, Dubai-Uae vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 57, Mumbai

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

ITA 4429/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. No. 4429/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) Cit(A) – 57, Shri.Virendra Mughumal Vs Aayakar Bhavan, Jangla,107, Sikkat Al . M.K.Road, Khalil Road, Near Down Mumbai-400020. Town Hotel, Ismail Abdul Ahmed Bldg, Shop No. 2, Al Buteen Fikree Market, Nariman Point S O, Deira Dubai Uae. Represented By Pramod Gupta & Associates, Chartered Accountants. 303,Indore Trade Center, 3/2,Sardar Patel Marg, Chhoti Gwaltoli, Indore. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. Anzpm5534B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Bhuwan Modi.Ar Revenue By Ms.Rajeshwari Menon.Sr.Dr

Section 69A

Assessing officer has erred to consider the residential status of the assesse in original assessment order as "Resident", while the assesse is a non-resident which was apparent on record mentioned on passport of the assesse, bank statement, but the same fact was ignored by Id assessing officer to wrongly

Radisson Hotels International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2382/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Deepika PasrichaFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

furnished within due date. 8.3. Levying interest u/s section 234B of the Act in the case of the assessee being a non-resident, where the entire income was liable to TDS. 8.4. Making a totaling error in the aggregate amount of interest computed. 9. That the Interest under section 244A