← 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

Lajwanti Bherwani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4349/DEL/2018[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasmt. Lajwanti Bherwani Vs. Acit, L/109, Lajpat Nagar-2 Cpc-Tds New Delhi-110024 Ghaziabad Pan : Aagpb5742F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 195Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 201(1)(A)Section 234E

that the appellant had purchased property from non resident on 28.04.2016 and as TDS was required to be deducted from payments being made from non-resident as per section 195 of the Act. The assessee had applied for getting Tax Deduction Account Number (TAN) issued for which an application

Utstarcom Inc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 187/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

India – United States of America (USA) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and a tax resident of USA. As stated, the assessee is engaged, inter alia, in the business ... first category deals with cases in which computer software is purchased directly by and end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer. ii. The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign

Ut Starcom Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 998/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

India – United States of America (USA) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and a tax resident of USA. As stated, the assessee is engaged, inter alia, in the business ... first category deals with cases in which computer software is purchased directly by and end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer. ii. The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ut Starcom Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1858/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

India – United States of America (USA) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and a tax resident of USA. As stated, the assessee is engaged, inter alia, in the business ... first category deals with cases in which computer software is purchased directly by and end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer. ii. The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R
Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

CONCLUSION: 83. For the reasons give above, we hold that where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder(s), which attracts Additional Income Tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) referred to in Sec.115-O of the Act, such additional income tax payable ... rate of tax ITA Nos. 467 & 480/M/2020 34 M/s. Wartsila India Pvt. Ltd. applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the sovereign's prerogative to extend the treaty protection to domestic companies paying

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 467/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R
Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

CONCLUSION: 83. For the reasons give above, we hold that where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder(s), which attracts Additional Income Tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) referred to in Sec.115-O of the Act, such additional income tax payable ... rate of tax ITA Nos. 467 & 480/M/2020 34 M/s. Wartsila India Pvt. Ltd. applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the sovereign's prerogative to extend the treaty protection to domestic companies paying

Strides Shasun Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1992/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ninad Patade, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R
Section 143Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 92C

that it did not give no rise to any income. The fact that the petitioner chose not to declare issue of shares to its non-resident associated enterprises in Form 3CEB as in its understanding it fell outside the scope of Chapter X of the Act now stands vindicated

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Reuters Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 4550/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

ADIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Reuters Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 4575/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3617/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5182/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

ADIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai vs. Reuters Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5155/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1287/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

The DDIT(It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd, Uk, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1979/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

The DDIT(It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd, Uk, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1978/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1709/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

Refinitiv Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1708/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3422/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

ADIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3366/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising

DDIT (International I. T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters on Line S.A, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5379/MUM/2005[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) order in holding that the assessee being a non-resident and the entire income of the assessee subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the act, no liability arises under section 234B ... liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7- 1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising