← 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

ACIT Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Anand Swarup Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 2371/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Acit Circle-1(3)(1), Vs. Sh. Anand Swarup Gupta, (Intl. Tax), Ibc M-38/1 Middle Circle, Room No. 501, Connaught Place, D-Block,Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 001 New Delhi 110 002 Pan Aappg3467Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 68

appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a non-resident individual. He derived income from salary, house property, capital gains, dividend and interest in India. He filed his return

M/S Indix Corporaion, United States vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 922/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.922/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Indix Corporation, The Income Tax Officer C/O S. Venkatram & Co Llp., (International Taxation), 218, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Ward-2(1), Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaeci 8965 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Ms.Pavitra Mani, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 : घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2024

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 206ASection 6Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated in United States of America (USA) and is a Non-Resident as per provisions of Sec.6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act“). The assessee company has filed its return of income

India Medtronic P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 1335/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under section 92CA(3); or ii) any non-resident not being a company or any foreign company. Thus here in this case, it is neither a foreign company or a person in whose case variation ... arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub- section (3) of section 92CA, and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company." 20 M/s. India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. 19. The aforesaid section envisages that, AO in the first instance

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 457/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sesha Srinivas, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a

royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act, which is payable,— (A) outside India; or (B) in India to a non-resident, not being a company or to a foreign company, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

also relied upon the Circular No.786 dated 07.02.2000 and Circular No.23 dated 23.07.69 wherein it has been held that the commission paid to non-resident for services rendered outside India are not chargeable to tax in India. In reply, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was duty bound ... provisions of Section 195 clearly shows that the deduction of tax is liable to be made by a person responsible for paying to the non-resident any sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act. The words “chargeable under the provisions of this Act” clearly shows that the payment which

International Education & Research Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Int-Taxa-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid and directions

ITA 183/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

well as DTAA. The case laws relied upon by the Appellant are distinguishable on facts. The Agreement between the Appellant and the non-resident institutions is not based on sharing of profits. The Appellant has not provided any basis for annual lump sum payment. The Appellant has not rebutted arguments

International Education & Research Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Int-Taxa-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid and directions

ITA 182/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

well as DTAA. The case laws relied upon by the Appellant are distinguishable on facts. The Agreement between the Appellant and the non-resident institutions is not based on sharing of profits. The Appellant has not provided any basis for annual lump sum payment. The Appellant has not rebutted arguments

Elizebeth Simaputhran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, ITA No.906/Chny/2023 stand allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 907/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Dasआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.906/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.907/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mrs. Elizabeth Sima Puthran Ito Prop. M/S. Puthran & Associates Ward-(1) बनाम No.B3, 5/7, Kesavan Orchid, International Taxation, / Vs. North Mada Street, Sri Nagar Colony, Chennai. Saidapet , Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepe-0124-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)- Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

disposed-off as under. 3. From case records of ITA No.906/Chny/23, it emerges that the assessee paid an amount of Rs.59.83 Lacs to various non-residents without deduction of tax at source (TDS). The assessee submitted that foreign law firms had no permanent establishment in India and therefore ... Lacs includes official filing fees paid to the Government of respective foreign countries for registration of IPR and reimbursement of expenses incurred by such non-resident professional. However, Ld. AO noted that the amount of Rs.34.22 Lacs was made to different countries which did not have ‘make available’ clause

Elizabeth Simaputhran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, ITA No.906/Chny/2023 stand allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 906/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Dasआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.906/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.907/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mrs. Elizabeth Sima Puthran Ito Prop. M/S. Puthran & Associates Ward-(1) बनाम No.B3, 5/7, Kesavan Orchid, International Taxation, / Vs. North Mada Street, Sri Nagar Colony, Chennai. Saidapet , Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepe-0124-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)- Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

disposed-off as under. 3. From case records of ITA No.906/Chny/23, it emerges that the assessee paid an amount of Rs.59.83 Lacs to various non-residents without deduction of tax at source (TDS). The assessee submitted that foreign law firms had no permanent establishment in India and therefore ... Lacs includes official filing fees paid to the Government of respective foreign countries for registration of IPR and reimbursement of expenses incurred by such non-resident professional. However, Ld. AO noted that the amount of Rs.34.22 Lacs was made to different countries which did not have ‘make available’ clause

Sri. Mohammadali Thayalepurayil, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 13/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 264Section 68

brother and M/s.Hotel Regency, etc., in the past and he also used to file the return of the appellant also, who is a Non-Resident and he is a non- resident for more than 30 years. His passport number is Z2055754. The appellant neither resides in Bangalore

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House 6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 Pan – Aaaca3622K Appellant Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai V/S

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Baker Hughes Energy Technology Uk Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3279/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediabaker Hughes Energy Vs. Acit Technology Uk Limited Circle – 1(1)(2), Stoneywood Park North, International Taxation, Dyce, Aberdeen-Ab21 7Ea, New Delhi United Kingdom – 1111 Pan No. Aahcg 6037 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sachit Jolly & Shri Rishabh Malhotra, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.03.2024

Section 133(6)Section 44B

Before we proceed to decide the issues, it is necessary to briefly deal with the facts. The assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in UK and is a tax resident of UK. As stated by the Assessing Officer, assessee is engaged in the business of supply of equipment

Amadeus It Group Sa, Spain vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3175/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

Treaty. 12. That without prejudice, the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in not appreciating that the booking fee received from non-resident airlines was not sourced in India in terms of Article 13(6) of the Treaty and was not liable to tax in India as ‘royalty ... terms of section 44DA of the Act and Article 13(5) of the Treaty, royalty income effectively connected with the PE of the non-resident is required to be taxed as business income on net basis. Re: Altea system 14. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

sufficient evidence for accepting the residential status as well as beneficial ownership for the purpose of applying the India- Mauritius Tax Treaty to the non-resident entity. I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022 (ii) The Finance Ministry issued a clarification vide press release dated 01.03.2013 stating that TRC produced by a resident ... Pearl Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd.” a company incorporated in India to “LEI Singapore Holdings Pte. Ltd.” a company incorporated in Singapore and a non-resident in India and, therefore, have reported long term capital gain on sale of shares. It was also submitted that since these shares were bought

Mr Vicky Murli Advani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Tax) Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3664/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhmr. Vicky Murli Advani Vs. Income Tax Officer, T3-3202, Runval Greens, International Tax, Rosewood, Near Fortis Ward1(1)(1), Hospital, Mulund Room No. 1817A, 18Th Goregaon Link Road, Floor, Air India Bldg. Mulund West- 400 078 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Agypa7741A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajesh Sanghvi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024

For Appellant: Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

money amount of Rs.33,56,250/- should not be added to the total income. The assessee explained that he was a non-resident during the assessment year 2015-16 and working for S.S. & C Globe OP in London and there was no question of any cash generation in India ... revealed that the assessee had paid Rs.232,31,250/- as against the agreement value of Rs.198,75,000/-. The assessee explained that being a non-resident he did not generate any cash for making any payment to the builder over and above the money given for purchasing the flat through

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the additional ground raised by the assessee under Rule-27 is allowed

ITA 111/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

Section 147Section 148Section 40

crore from a foreign bank (ABN Amro Bank for which the bank guarantee provided by M/s FCC (one of the members of joint venture non-resident). ii) Consultation fee Rs.14,41,022/- paid to a member of a joint venture not allowable u/s 40(ba) of the Act. (iii) From

Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the additional ground raised by the assessee under Rule-27 is allowed

ITA 2677/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

Section 147Section 148Section 40

crore from a foreign bank (ABN Amro Bank for which the bank guarantee provided by M/s FCC (one of the members of joint venture non-resident). ii) Consultation fee Rs.14,41,022/- paid to a member of a joint venture not allowable u/s 40(ba) of the Act. (iii) From

Somenath Duttagupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 627/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.627/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Somnath Duttagupta……..………….…................…...……………....Appellant A 168, Lake Gardens, Shivam Building Flat A2, Kolkata – 700045. [Pan: Afqpd5412G] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Balaji V, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 01, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.04.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making/Confirming The Addition Of Salary Income Of Rs.47,26,133/- Received By The Assessee In India For The Services Rendered In Us. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Revised Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2019-20 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.191370/-.

Section 250Section 90(4)

assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the above submissions and further pleaded that the assessee was qualified to be a non-resident of India and tax resident of US. The pay role of the assessee was in India and salary for the services rendered ... said provisions if the assessee’s total stay in the relevant financial year is less than 60 days then the assessee becomes non-resident in that financial year. That, in such case, the requirement of stay of not more than 365 days in four years would not arise. However, without

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL