← 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, Cir- 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Innovage Fintech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 3068/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantm/S Innovage Fintech Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(2)(1) 4-404, Krishna Residency, Opp Room No. 642, 6Th Floor, Radhakrishna Vidyalaya, Behind Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sunder Nager, Malad (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400064 Pan No. Aacci3766N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar &For Respondent: Shri. K. C. Selvamani
Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)

shares is not commensurate to the financial results of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee had issued shares on conversion of debentus to non-resident at much lesser rate as compared to the premium charged from the resident investors. He pointed that in the Financial Year ... premium charged from the non-resident investors was ₹12,667/- per share, whereas, the assessee has charged premium of ₹21,284/- per share from resident investors on the equity A.Y. 2017-18 ACIT, Cir – 4(2)(1) V/s M/s Innovage Fintech Pvt. Ltd. shares allotted in Financial Year

Pareshkumar Lakhmichand Muthreja, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation -Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 977/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blepareshkumar Lakhmichand Muthreja V. Income Tax Officer 304, Venkatesh Chambers Chs International Taxation – 3(2)(1) Prescot Road, G.T. Marg Room No. 1627, 16Th Floor Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aacpm5882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 69

cash and denomination of currency notes deposited by the assessee are different. In our considered view the issue involved in this case relating to Non-Resident of India and also there is no doubt on the issue of source of income and assessee has a right to claim the benefit

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Authority Compqny, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

independent agent); and  the agent habitually exercises an authority to conclude contracts or maintain and delivers merchandise or secures orders for the non-resident entity. As mentioned above, RGA Services is not an agent of RIRC and acts in an independent manner which is evident from page ... only the remuneration for the services rendered and it shall not take into account the 'profit' or any part of it arising to the non-resident principal. The profits attributable to the non-resident principal based on the functions performed, risks assumed and assets used will necessarily have

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. Anand Persad Jaiswal, New Dehi

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2742/DEL/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2003-04 The Dcit, Central Circle-04, New Delhi Anand Persad Jaiswal, 54, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, New Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Adrpj 2549 M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr For Assessee: Shri Deepchand Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-23, New Delhi Dated 25.08.2022 For Ay 2003-04. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Quashing The Assessment Order Relying On The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Brahm. Dutt (100 Taxmann.Com 324) Without Appreciating That The Amendment To Sec 149(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Finance Act, 2021 Was Retrospective In Nature In View Of Explanation To Sec 149 As Held By Itat (D Bench Mumbai) In The Case Of Dilip J. Thakkar (135 Taxmann.Com 208) After Considering The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In Brahm Dutt (Supra).

For Appellant: Shri Deepchand Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Brahm Dutt (supra). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee, being non-resident, is out of purview of the tax liability as the income was earned outside India without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed ... first appellate order. 8. As per provision of section 5(2) of the Act which is charging section for non- resident, Indian income of non-resident is taxable under the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961, and any other income earned outside India is not taxable in India

Aluminium Pechiney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int. Tax., New Dehi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 9484/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice-Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aluminium Pechiney, Vs. Dcit, C/O- Ca, Praveen Gambhir, Circle-1(1)(1), 87-B, Masjid Moth Ph-2, International Taxation, Dda Flats, G.K. 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaica3338C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154

under section 154 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in France and a tax resident of that country. As stated, assessee owns certain right, know-how, designs, and processes required

Aluminium Pechiney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int. Tax., New Dehi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 9483/DEL/2019[ 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice-Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aluminium Pechiney, Vs. Dcit, C/O- Ca, Praveen Gambhir, Circle-1(1)(1), 87-B, Masjid Moth Ph-2, International Taxation, Dda Flats, G.K. 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaica3338C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154

under section 154 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in France and a tax resident of that country. As stated, assessee owns certain right, know-how, designs, and processes required

M/S Aluminium Pechiney, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3410/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice-Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aluminium Pechiney, Vs. Dcit, C/O- Ca, Praveen Gambhir, Circle-1(1)(1), 87-B, Masjid Moth Ph-2, International Taxation, Dda Flats, G.K. 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaica3338C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154

under section 154 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in France and a tax resident of that country. As stated, assessee owns certain right, know-how, designs, and processes required

Amit Harit, Meerut vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Noida

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

ITA 1045/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaamit Harit Vs. Dcit G-15/6, Shastri Nagar, Meerut International Taxation Uttar Pradesh – 250 004 Noida Pan No. Abzph 9529 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

When the matter was called for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that the assessee is a non-resident and the addition of Rs.70,84,034/- has been wrongly made which is exempt from taxation. It was submitted that; (i). the assessment was completed under ... assertion of the AO, however, the date of hearing fixed was 17.10.2018 i.e. before the date of delivery of notice. The assessee being a non-resident was not having the knowledge of such notices and could Amit Harit vs. DCIT 3 not comply; (v). the evidences under Rule 46A were

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1518/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

introduction of the provisions contained in Chapter X is to prevent an assessee from avoiding payment of tax by transferring income yielding assets to non-residents even while retaining the power to enjoy the fruits of such transactions i.e. the income so generated. As a concept, it is not totally

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1240/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

introduction of the provisions contained in Chapter X is to prevent an assessee from avoiding payment of tax by transferring income yielding assets to non-residents even while retaining the power to enjoy the fruits of such transactions i.e. the income so generated. As a concept, it is not totally

ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 441/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed any particulars of income and quashed the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that in the case of non-resident the primary onus of ascertaining the income tax liability is with the non-resident payee as is evident in the instant case wherein ... these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United State

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1392/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed any particulars of income and quashed the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that in the case of non-resident the primary onus of ascertaining the income tax liability is with the non-resident payee as is evident in the instant case wherein ... these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United State

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1391/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed any particulars of income and quashed the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that in the case of non-resident the primary onus of ascertaining the income tax liability is with the non-resident payee as is evident in the instant case wherein ... these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1390/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed any particulars of income and quashed the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that in the case of non-resident the primary onus of ascertaining the income tax liability is with the non-resident payee as is evident in the instant case wherein ... these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1389/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed any particulars of income and quashed the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that in the case of non-resident the primary onus of ascertaining the income tax liability is with the non-resident payee as is evident in the instant case wherein ... these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1388/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed any particulars of income and quashed the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that in the case of non-resident the primary onus of ascertaining the income tax liability is with the non-resident payee as is evident in the instant case wherein ... these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1387/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed any particulars of income and quashed the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that in the case of non-resident the primary onus of ascertaining the income tax liability is with the non-resident payee as is evident in the instant case wherein ... these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1386/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed any particulars of income and quashed the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that in the case of non-resident the primary onus of ascertaining the income tax liability is with the non-resident payee as is evident in the instant case wherein ... these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1385/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed any particulars of income and quashed the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that in the case of non-resident the primary onus of ascertaining the income tax liability is with the non-resident payee as is evident in the instant case wherein ... these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int.Taxation, New Delhi vs. Raytheon Company, United States

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

ITA 1384/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed any particulars of income and quashed the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that in the case of non-resident the primary onus of ascertaining the income tax liability is with the non-resident payee as is evident in the instant case wherein ... these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty