← 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

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2094/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

deducted at ₹ 3,394,293/– under section 195 of The Income Tax Act. He submitted that this payment is made to the non-resident and therefore, subject to other arguments, the tax should have been deducted under section 195 of the income tax act. He submitted the jurisdiction

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2093/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

deducted at ₹ 3,394,293/– under section 195 of The Income Tax Act. He submitted that this payment is made to the non-resident and therefore, subject to other arguments, the tax should have been deducted under section 195 of the income tax act. He submitted the jurisdiction

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2092/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

deducted at ₹ 3,394,293/– under section 195 of The Income Tax Act. He submitted that this payment is made to the non-resident and therefore, subject to other arguments, the tax should have been deducted under section 195 of the income tax act. He submitted the jurisdiction

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2091/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

deducted at ₹ 3,394,293/– under section 195 of The Income Tax Act. He submitted that this payment is made to the non-resident and therefore, subject to other arguments, the tax should have been deducted under section 195 of the income tax act. He submitted the jurisdiction

Inteva Products Netherlands B.V., Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), International Taxtion, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 765/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: A. R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vii)

India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), hence, taxable in India. 3. Briefly the facts are that the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Netherland and tax-resident of Netherland. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2016 declaring income

Cricket Australia, Australia vs. DCIT, Int, Taxation Circle-1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 605/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194E

principal palace of business at Singapore. It was submitted by the assessee that the fee received by the assessee from another non-resident company is not subject to tax in India. It was further submitted, even otherwise also, the fee received cannot be treated as royalty under Article ... contrary, as the assessment order itself would reveal instead of making any payment, assessee had receipt from Taj Cricket Ltd., another non-resident entity. Thus, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act clearly reveals that the formation of belief

Veg 'N' Table, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Int. Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2251/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 . Veg ‘N’ Table, Vs. Dcit, 801, Tower-A 1, Circle- International Tax - Ansal Corporate Park, 3(1)(1), Sector-142, Delhi Noida Pan :Aagcv2131A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

India – Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’). 5. Briefly the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is non-resident corporate entity and tax resident of Mauritius having a valid Tax Residency Certificate issued by Mauritius Revenue Authorities for the impugned assessment year. He has also stated

DCIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Arvind Gupta, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 8146/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 148

from a mortgage bank. In final analysis, the AO has concluded that assesseee qualifies to be a non-resident in India in the previous year 2005-06, relevant to assessment year 2006-07 and the returned income at NIL has been accepted. In view of the aforesaid, we find that

Picture Time Digiplex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

ITA 7056/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Picture Time Digiplex Vs. Acit, Private Limited Circle-19(2), B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi Pan: Aaicp2250Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

first year of incorporation of assessee company. Ld. AO was not satisfied with the allotment of 45785 shares issued to residents and non-residents. The AO, thus questioning them u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act, discredited the valuation of DCF method adopted by the assessee. The Assessee had relied

Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.36/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17) Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward (International Taxation) Pan: Aiwpb 3717 D Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 5(2)(a)Section 50CSection 54E

38/DRP-1/BNG/2022-23, dated 15/12/2022 for the AY 2016-17. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee who is an individual non-resident filed his return of income on 2 27/09/2016 admitting a total income of Rs. 1,50,315/- and claimed exemption U/s. 54EC ... other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee being a non-resident and engaged in on-shore projects has requested his employer in Nigeria to transfer the salaries to his NRE account in India to meet

George Stanley, Thiruvalla vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

ITA 587/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

u/s.54F and/or s.54EC on the said capital gain, where so, also denied. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a non-resident Indian, returned his income for the year on 29.7.2014 at Rs.8,47,598 as income from other sources. The several deposits in his bank ... assessee had claimed that he was cultivating the lands till the date of its sale. However, it is notified that the assessee was a non-resident living in USA and could not have cultivated the land by himself. His mother of 94 years, being the sole family member in India

DCIT, Cochin vs. Shri M George ( Mukkadayil Joseph George), Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2334/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AdvaniFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

rejecting the contention of the assessee that as per provisions of Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act in the case of a Non-Resident income which is received or is deemed to be received outside India or the income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue ... copy of which is placed before us at page 62 of assessee's paper-book, does not at all tick the status as "non-resident", but there is a clearly visible mark in the status as "resident". On these facts, the Assessing Officer, to whom this case was transferred

DCIT International Taxation Circle, Gurugram vs. Gurpreetkaurpanesar, Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 672/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BE (Vice President), SHRI M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 69

additional evidences for remand proceedings? 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a non-resident (citizen of USA) and had not filed her income tax return for the Asst Year 2012-13. The ld AO observed that as per information

Chryso, Paris vs. DCIT Circle Int. Tax 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 296/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Chryso Paris, Versus Dcit, Circle 3(1)(1), 19, Place De La Resistance International Taxation, 92445, Cedex, Issy Les Delhi. Moulineaux, France. Pan: Aadcc0892N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 154

appeal in limine without condoning the delay. 5. Before us, the submission of the assessee is two-fold. Firstly, the assessee is a non-resident company, being a tax resident of France, has no presence in India. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the occurrence of COVID-19 in between

Alstom (Thailand) Ltd (Formerly Known As Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand) Limited), Thailand vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1930/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Alstom (Thailand) Ltd. (Formerly Versus Acit, Circle 1(1)(2), Known As Bombardier International Taxation, Transportation Signal (Thailand) Delhi. Limited Thailand. No. 724, Phase 3, Gidc, Vadodara, Gujrat. Pan: Aadcb5702A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

receipts from engineering services as royalty. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee, earlier known as Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand) Limited, is a non-resident corporate entity, incorporated under the laws of Thailand and a tax resident of Thailand. As stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged

Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.6723/Del/2017 is allowed, whereas,

ITA 6725/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

Section 9(1)(vii)

Agreement (‘DTAA’). 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue, being more or less common in all these appeals, are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated under the laws of Singapore and is a tax resident of Singapore. The assessee is a part of Bombardier Transportation group

Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.6723/Del/2017 is allowed, whereas,

ITA 6724/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

Section 9(1)(vii)

Agreement (‘DTAA’). 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue, being more or less common in all these appeals, are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated under the laws of Singapore and is a tax resident of Singapore. The assessee is a part of Bombardier Transportation group

Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.6723/Del/2017 is allowed, whereas,

ITA 6723/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

Section 9(1)(vii)

Agreement (‘DTAA’). 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue, being more or less common in all these appeals, are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated under the laws of Singapore and is a tax resident of Singapore. The assessee is a part of Bombardier Transportation group

Shri. James Kochappu Kolenchery, Canada vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 892/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjames Kochapu Kolenchery Asst. Cit, International 563, Lombarde Ave Oshawa Taxation, Vs. Ontario, Canada Lij8Hs 999999 Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Ekjpk3818P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bangalore [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Appeal Against Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 28.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Is Delayed By 27 Days. As Explained In The Condonation Petition, Submitted Along With, In The Form Of An Affidavit By Shri Tony V.J., The Assessee’S, A Resident Of Canada, Constituted Attorney, The Impugned Order Was Received By The Assessee In Canada Only On 17.6.2022, Whereupon The Power Of Attorney Was Executed & The Papers Sent To India, Entailing Time & Which Led To The Delay In Preparation Of Appeal Papers & Filing Them. The Same Is Found Reasonable & Fairly Not Objected To By Smt. Devi, The Learned Sr. D.R. Hearing In The Matter Was Accordingly Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 69A

said farm (i.e., up to June, 2016), accumulated over the years (brought to India during their visits thereto), as well as borrowing from relatives (non-residents). The amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was out of cash withdrawal from the bank account made earlier. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the explanation ... agricultural land, deemed the balance Rs.23.48 lakhs as unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Act. In appeal, the assessee furnished confirmations from the non-resident creditors. The same did not find favour with the ld. CIT(A) who, finding the assessee’s case as without merit, held as: “8. Assessee