← 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

Preity Zinta, Mumbai vs. Intl. Tax Ward (4)(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 521/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 68

under Section 144C(5) of the Act pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, a non-resident 2. individual, filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2016- 17 on 26/06/2016 declaring total income

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge vs. DCIT Int Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 607/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 270A

impact the strategic plans of corporates. 15. We have examined the taxability of ILO receipt in the hands of the assessee who is a non-resident with reference to the Indo US treaty. The relevant extract of Article 12 of the treaty and the MOU to the treaty are reproduced

Aircon Beibars (Fze), New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 4721/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 9(1)(vi)

appeal relates to taxability of Rs.1,43,59,792/- as income from royalty. 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated under the laws of United Arab Emirates (UAE) AY: 2015-16 and stated to be engaged in the business of leasing of helicopter

Shrirang Sales Corporation, Surt vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 1(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 147/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.147/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Shrirang Sales Corporation, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot 866, G.I. D.C. Sachin, Sachin Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Surat, Road No.85, Chorasi, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat– 394230 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs8216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ketan Jagirdar, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2023

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 271Section 271ISection 274

along with the assessment order. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny to verify the outward remittance made by the assessee to a non-resident or to a foreign company for the year under consideration. During the assessment proceedings it was observed that the assessee had imported various machineries ... verification of the entire details submitted by the assessee it was noticed that the following payments made by the assessee to a non-resident company from 01/04/2015 to 31/03/2016 in which the requisite form 15CA was required to produce before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer noted that the assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC 5(2) Central Range-5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Wellknown Business Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agrawal/HiteshFor Respondent: Dr. Shyam Prasad (CIT-DR) (on 12.04.2023)/ Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 10(38)Section 133A

Court, High Court, National Company Law Tribunal, Securities and Exchange Board of India or Reserve Bank of India in this behalf; (ii) by any non-resident in accordance with foreign direct investment guidelines issued by the Government of India; (iii) by an investment fund referred to in clause ... framed under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Employee Stock Option Scheme and Employee Stock Purchase Scheme) Guidelines,1999; (v) acquisition by any non-resident in accordance with foreign direct investment guidelines of the Government of India; (vi) where acquisition of shares of company is made under Securities

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC 5(2) Central Range-5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Wellknown Business Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1948/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agrawal/HiteshFor Respondent: Dr. Shyam Prasad (CIT-DR) (on 12.04.2023)/ Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 10(38)Section 133A

Court, High Court, National Company Law Tribunal, Securities and Exchange Board of India or Reserve Bank of India in this behalf; (ii) by any non-resident in accordance with foreign direct investment guidelines issued by the Government of India; (iii) by an investment fund referred to in clause ... framed under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Employee Stock Option Scheme and Employee Stock Purchase Scheme) Guidelines,1999; (v) acquisition by any non-resident in accordance with foreign direct investment guidelines of the Government of India; (vi) where acquisition of shares of company is made under Securities

Modlite Communications, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2828/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2828/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Modlite Communications Ito Plot No.1, 20, Pocket-H, Vs. Ward 27(1) Sector-4, Bawana Industrial Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan No. Abdfm7334D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 40

incorrect column disallowance is made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act which is I.T.A.No.2828/Del/2022 applicable to payment of royalty, etc. made to non-residents and cannot be applied to the case of the assessee. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that the matter

Shri Khurshid Ahmed Wani S/O Gulam Mohd Wani, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Srinagar

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

ITA 191/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 147Section 148

filing of the appeal has been due to non service of the impugned order issued by the ld. CIT(A) as the appellant is non-resident doctor by profession staying in Saudi Arabi since 1990. In support of the condonation application, the ld. AR has filed a written application with ... support of an affidavit placed on record dated 24.07.2023 which reads as under: “The assessee is doctor by Profession and Non-resident Indian residing abroad since 1990. The assessment for the year under consideration was completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961, vide

ACIT, Circle-17(1), New Delhi vs. Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 765/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Mitsui & Co. India Pvt.Ltd., Circle-17(1), 4Th Floor, World Mark, 3, Aero City, New Delhi. Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aadcm4488J Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mitsui & Co. India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, 4Th Floor, World Mark, 3, Aero City, Sr-6, Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. New Delhi. Pan-Aadcm4488J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg & Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ca Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 Order

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) by ignoring findings of the fact recorded by the AO that Mitsui Japan being a non-resident, tax is payable by it in India on income attributable to Indian PE. Mitsui India should have deducted an amount ... final tax payment of non-resident by way of TDS on its receipts, out of the payments of Rs.51,27,74,699/- it made to Mitsui Japan. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time

Mitsui & Co. India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Sr-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Mitsui & Co. India Pvt.Ltd., Circle-17(1), 4Th Floor, World Mark, 3, Aero City, New Delhi. Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aadcm4488J Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mitsui & Co. India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, 4Th Floor, World Mark, 3, Aero City, Sr-6, Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. New Delhi. Pan-Aadcm4488J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg & Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ca Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 Order

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) by ignoring findings of the fact recorded by the AO that Mitsui Japan being a non-resident, tax is payable by it in India on income attributable to Indian PE. Mitsui India should have deducted an amount ... final tax payment of non-resident by way of TDS on its receipts, out of the payments of Rs.51,27,74,699/- it made to Mitsui Japan. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2036/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessees had PE in India in the assessment years under dispute. 3. The brief facts of the case are, the assessees, hitherto, are non-resident corporate entities. The first named assessee is a tax resident of USA. Whereas, the second named assessee is a tax resident of Switzerland. As stated

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2035/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessees had PE in India in the assessment years under dispute. 3. The brief facts of the case are, the assessees, hitherto, are non-resident corporate entities. The first named assessee is a tax resident of USA. Whereas, the second named assessee is a tax resident of Switzerland. As stated

Ge Energy Parts Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2034/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessees had PE in India in the assessment years under dispute. 3. The brief facts of the case are, the assessees, hitherto, are non-resident corporate entities. The first named assessee is a tax resident of USA. Whereas, the second named assessee is a tax resident of Switzerland. As stated

G E Energy Parts Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle-1(13)(1) Internationaltaxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2033/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessees had PE in India in the assessment years under dispute. 3. The brief facts of the case are, the assessees, hitherto, are non-resident corporate entities. The first named assessee is a tax resident of USA. Whereas, the second named assessee is a tax resident of Switzerland. As stated

We Are Voices Entertainment Inc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT International Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1474/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234ASection 270A

proceedings under section 270A of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of USA and is a tax resident of USA. The assessee is engaged in the business of branding ... that state. The threshold of PE under DTAAs and “business connection” under Income-tax Act cover situations where the business activities of non-resident satisfy “business in” criteria for establishing a taxable presence in the source country. A reference may be made to the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi vs. Avnet Asia Pte Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1287/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas Misra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT/DR
Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

holding that receipts of the assessee from sale of software is not taxable as royalty.” 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and a tax resident of Singapore. As stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Avnet ... seller/distributor of hardware along with software packages. It is a fact on record that the assessee procures the hardware and software packages from non-resident vendors and re-sells them to Indian customers without any value addition, along with, warranty packages. The facts on record clearly reveal that what

Ac, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi vs. Avnet Asia Pte Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1285/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas Misra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT/DR
Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

holding that receipts of the assessee from sale of software is not taxable as royalty.” 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and a tax resident of Singapore. As stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Avnet ... seller/distributor of hardware along with software packages. It is a fact on record that the assessee procures the hardware and software packages from non-resident vendors and re-sells them to Indian customers without any value addition, along with, warranty packages. The facts on record clearly reveal that what

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi vs. Avnet Asia Pte Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1284/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas Misra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT/DR
Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

holding that receipts of the assessee from sale of software is not taxable as royalty.” 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and a tax resident of Singapore. As stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Avnet ... seller/distributor of hardware along with software packages. It is a fact on record that the assessee procures the hardware and software packages from non-resident vendors and re-sells them to Indian customers without any value addition, along with, warranty packages. The facts on record clearly reveal that what

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi vs. Avnet Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1282/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas Misra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT/DR
Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

holding that receipts of the assessee from sale of software is not taxable as royalty.” 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and a tax resident of Singapore. As stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Avnet ... seller/distributor of hardware along with software packages. It is a fact on record that the assessee procures the hardware and software packages from non-resident vendors and re-sells them to Indian customers without any value addition, along with, warranty packages. The facts on record clearly reveal that what

DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Mondon Investments Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 4014/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle 2(2)(1), Versus Mondon Investments Ltd., International Taxation, C/O Khiwani & Co., Cas, New Delhi. East Patel Nagar, Main Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aafcm8386H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit/Dr

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 144C(3)Section 292BSection 92C

Keeping in view the clarification received from the Revenue, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity. In the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2013 declaring nil income. Assessee’s case