← 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

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2091/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Mitsubishi Corporation [2021] 130 taxmann.com 276 (SC), per which interest shall be chargeable prior to the Financial Year 2012-13 in case of non-residents 9. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section ... also the addition of Rs. 36,43,550/- made under section 44BB of the Act asserting that the assessee being non-resident company (resident of Canada) is entitled to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Act or provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2090/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Mitsubishi Corporation [2021] 130 taxmann.com 276 (SC), per which interest shall be chargeable prior to the Financial Year 2012-13 in case of non-residents 9. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section ... also the addition of Rs. 36,43,550/- made under section 44BB of the Act asserting that the assessee being non-resident company (resident of Canada) is entitled to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Act or provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2305/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Mitsubishi Corporation [2021] 130 taxmann.com 276 (SC), per which interest shall be chargeable prior to the Financial Year 2012-13 in case of non-residents 9. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section ... also the addition of Rs. 36,43,550/- made under section 44BB of the Act asserting that the assessee being non-resident company (resident of Canada) is entitled to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Act or provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India

Openwave Mobility, Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1644/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)

Telecom Operators across the Globe. It has no business connection or Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India. Being a tax-resident of USA and a non-resident for the purposes of Act in India it is entitled to the beneficial provisions of the Double Taxation 2 Avoidance Agreement between India ... held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre Of Excellence Private Limited that amount paid by resident of a non-resident software supplier/manufacturer which does not amount to transfer of use of/right of use of any copyright under the DTAA is not taxable under

Krishna Hari Gaddam, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 668/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No.668/Hyd/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Krishna Hari Gaddam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-12(1), [Pan No. Adepg7798Q] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02/11/2023 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Chennai, (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Salaried Employee Of Karvy Stock Broking Limited. For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Fled His Return Of Income, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 86,10,680/- & Paid Total Income Tax Of Rs. 27,37,674/-, Consisting Of Tax Deducted At Source (“Tds”) Of Rs. 15,11,384/- & Self Assessment Tax Of Rs.12,26,290/-. The Cpc Bengluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), Dt. 08/05/2021 Did Not Give Credit Of Rs. 13,50,000/- Out Of Total Tds Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Deducted By M/S. Karvy Stock Broking Limited U/S. 192 Of The Act, Contending That Form 26As Does Contains The Details Of Tds Of Rs. 13,50,000/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.14,17,500/-.

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(1)Section 192

respectively. 8.2 Likewise, payments made to contractors and insurance commission, payments made in respect of life insurance policy, and payments made to the non-resident. sportsmen or sports associations are liable for deduction of tax at source under sections 194C, 1940, 1940A, and 194E, respectively. 8.3 As far as payments ... made to non-residents (not being a company), or to a foreign company are concerned, any interest (not being interest referred to in section 194L8 or section 194LC or section 194LO) or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being income chargeable under the head 'Salaries

Syed Waquar Hussain, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 206/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Syed Waquar Hussain Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate Vs Income Tax, Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Kolkata 19D, Muktaram Babu Street Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Adnph9460R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/01/2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The Only Issue For Our Consideration Is Regarding Addition Of Rs. 15,72,500/- Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposit During Demonetisation Period. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) & Prior To The Alleged Cash Deposit, Assessee Had Withdrawn The Amount From Its Bank Account & The Cash In Hand Available With The Assessee Has Been Used For Making

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

account of unexplained cash deposit during demonetisation period. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and prior to the alleged cash deposit, assessee had withdrawn the amount from its bank account and the cash in hand available ... matter was carried before the ld. CIT(A), detailed written submissions were filed. Perusal of the same indicates that the assessee was having Non-Resident External (NRE) account with SBI. The assessee also holds NRE account with Canara Bank and received regular form of remittances in the NRE accounts

Satish Babu Kannan, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Intnl Taxn Ward-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 370/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 195

adduced in the assessment order as to why the payments are treated as income in the hands of the appellant who was a non-resident for AY 2015-16.” 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee briefly stated the facts that the assessee Shri Satish Babu Kannan is presently resideing

Harshada Rajendra Shah, United States of America vs. ITO Ward 20(1)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4300/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Ao In View Of His Health Issues & 2 Assessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Suni Mathews, Sr. DR
Section 144

additions made by the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal the Tribunal. 3. The ld.A.R submitted that the assessee is a Non-resident settled in USA and aged around 70 years old. Further, he is suffering from Cancer and is being treated in USA. The addition made

JCIT (It) (OSD)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Rangachari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 2393/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 254(2)Section 9(1)(i)

appeal.” 6. First, we will deal with the issues and the grounds raised by the Revenue. The brief facts are that assessee is a non-resident Indian settled in UAE and was not filing the return of income in the individual capacity in India as no income has arisen ... companies based in India, ld. CIT (A) held that Id. AO is to assist in the hands of an individual who is a non-resident and unexplained investment can be made u/s.69 / 69B in case no 27 ITA No.2393/Mum/2019 Shri Arun Rangachari books of accounts exists and the same

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 4786/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

opinion ought not to be disallowed. Accordingly this ground of the revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 2: Expenses incurred for mobilization of deposits from Non-resident Indians (NRIs) – Rs 8,88,50,535. 45. Brief background qua this issue are that, NRIs form a large resource pool with potential sources ... Accordingly, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. ITA No 4786/MUM/2016– Department Appeal Ground No. 1: Expenses incurred for mobilization of deposits from Non-resident Indians (NRIs) – Rs 9,29,19,828 94. Again this issue is similar to the ground raised in Revenue appeal for A.Y.2004-05 and accordingly

The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Range -3, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 4765/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

opinion ought not to be disallowed. Accordingly this ground of the revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 2: Expenses incurred for mobilization of deposits from Non-resident Indians (NRIs) – Rs 8,88,50,535. 45. Brief background qua this issue are that, NRIs form a large resource pool with potential sources ... Accordingly, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. ITA No 4786/MUM/2016– Department Appeal Ground No. 1: Expenses incurred for mobilization of deposits from Non-resident Indians (NRIs) – Rs 9,29,19,828 94. Again this issue is similar to the ground raised in Revenue appeal for A.Y.2004-05 and accordingly

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Hongkong & Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 7824/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7336/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2004-05) & ITA No.4765/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2005-06) The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior Vice President Tax, India Area Management 5th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, 52/60, MG Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) Vs. The Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai 1st Flo

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

opinion ought not to be disallowed. Accordingly this ground of the revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 2: Expenses incurred for mobilization of deposits from Non-resident Indians (NRIs) – Rs 8,88,50,535. 45. Brief background qua this issue are that, NRIs form a large resource pool with potential sources ... Accordingly, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. ITA No 4786/MUM/2016– Department Appeal Ground No. 1: Expenses incurred for mobilization of deposits from Non-resident Indians (NRIs) – Rs 9,29,19,828 94. Again this issue is similar to the ground raised in Revenue appeal for A.Y.2004-05 and accordingly

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 7336/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

opinion ought not to be disallowed. Accordingly this ground of the revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 2: Expenses incurred for mobilization of deposits from Non-resident Indians (NRIs) – Rs 8,88,50,535. 45. Brief background qua this issue are that, NRIs form a large resource pool with potential sources ... Accordingly, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. ITA No 4786/MUM/2016– Department Appeal Ground No. 1: Expenses incurred for mobilization of deposits from Non-resident Indians (NRIs) – Rs 9,29,19,828 94. Again this issue is similar to the ground raised in Revenue appeal for A.Y.2004-05 and accordingly

Penupetruni Chinna Rao, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 401/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C(1)Section 54Section 54B

taxability could not have been considered by Ld. AO. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The assessee is a non-resident individual and he filed his return of income on 31-03-2017 declaring income of Rs.47.31 Lacs. The assessee admitted certain capital gains

Globe Teleservices Limited, Hong Kong vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

ITA 349/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos. 348 & 349/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 191Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

received by GTL, from Vodafone South Ltd, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is undisputed that GTL is a non-resident telecom operator based in Hongkong. It is reiterated that, under similar circumstances, wherein the telecom operators were based in Hongkong. in the below mentioned ... hands of the assessee u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the act. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: 4.1 Assessee is a non-resident company registered in Hongkong. It had received payment of Rs.20,19,231/- for A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs.36

Globe Teleservices Limited, Hong Kong vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

ITA 348/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos. 348 & 349/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 191Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

received by GTL, from Vodafone South Ltd, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is undisputed that GTL is a non-resident telecom operator based in Hongkong. It is reiterated that, under similar circumstances, wherein the telecom operators were based in Hongkong. in the below mentioned ... hands of the assessee u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the act. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: 4.1 Assessee is a non-resident company registered in Hongkong. It had received payment of Rs.20,19,231/- for A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs.36

Gorakshan Sabha, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mof, Goi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

Section 115VSection 115WSection 143Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 200ASection 206CSection 246ASection 250

referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent of a non-resident; (e) an order made under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 170; (f) an order made under section

Gorakshan Sabha, Nagpur, Wardha Road vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mof, Goi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 91/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

Section 115VSection 115WSection 143Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 200ASection 206CSection 246ASection 250

referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent of a non-resident; (e) an order made under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 170; (f) an order made under section

Vijaya Pratap Kumar Dasari, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 310/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vijay Pratap Kumar Vs. Asst. Commissioner Dasari, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-12(1), [Pan: Aimpd4761H] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23-04-2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 23-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

facts of the case are that the assessee, Vijaya Pratap Kumar Dasari is an employee in L&T Technology Services Limited and is a non-resident for the impugned assessment year. The assessee derives income from salary and income from other sources. For the AY. 2017-18, the assessee

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. DCIT TDS, Indore

ITA 265/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd. (supra) which is also a case of a non-resident company based in Hongkong which owned a transponder and allowed it to be used by broadcasters. Both issues are interlinked in the sense that ... Court also observed that the equipments and submarine cables are situated overseas and that Vodafone Idea Ltd. had availed certain services from the non-resident telecom operators and that such agreements would not create a permanent establishment of such non-resident telecom operators in India. Thereafter Hon’ble High Court