← 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

Tara Raju Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 195/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

short, the Act). Appellants are husband and wife, who ITA No. 188 & 195/Srt/2023 Raju Maganlal Patel Vs ITO & 1 Anr. are non-resident Indian. Facts in both these years are similar, therefore, both these appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order to avoid ... assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he is a Non-resident Indian (NRI), residing in United States of America (USA) from last 32 years and no return of income was filed

Shri Raju Maganlal Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

short, the Act). Appellants are husband and wife, who ITA No. 188 & 195/Srt/2023 Raju Maganlal Patel Vs ITO & 1 Anr. are non-resident Indian. Facts in both these years are similar, therefore, both these appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order to avoid ... assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he is a Non-resident Indian (NRI), residing in United States of America (USA) from last 32 years and no return of income was filed

ACIT, Circle-3(2), Surat vs. M/S. Vinay Diamonds, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/SRT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S Vinay Diamonds 201 To 205, 2Nd Floor, Avad Building, Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat, Room Vs. Opp. Mehta Petrol Pump, Katargam, No.410, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395004 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfv 5089 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar– Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, CA
Section 195(6)Section 271

information related to transaction in the form No.15CA/15CB. The assessing officer found on the verification that the 70 payments had been made to a non-resident from 1.06.2015 to 31.03.2016, in which requisite Form No.15CA was required to be submitted before the assessing officer. Since the assessee failed to provide ... Revenue, argued that as per Section 195(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any sum, whether or not chargeable under the provisions of this Act, shall furnish the information relating

DCIT-CC 5(2), Central Range 5, Mumbai vs. M/S Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 652/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax A6t, 1961 ignoring the fact that charging of extra share premium from non-resident over and above valuation done by independent value has not been justified by the assessee company. 2 ITA 652/Mum/2023 M/s Jet Privilege ... entirety. Besides, it is a fact that the 1st proviso to Sec. 68 requiring to explain the source of source is not applicable to non-residents. No independent evidence has been brought out by the AO in any manner to question the genuineness of the transaction apart from the fact

Dhl Logistics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

For Appellant: Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/For Respondent: Jayant B Jhaveri
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92CSection 92D

arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.” After referring the aforesaid provisions the ld. Counsel contended that since the order

Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 926/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.924 To 926/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 To 2019-20)

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Anil Kumar Das
Section 143(1)Section 234B

return of income filed by the assesse. 3. The assessee is a financial institution incorporated in USA and residential status of the assesse is non-resident. The further relevant facts are discussed while adjudicating ground of appeal of the assessee as follows. 4. Ground No. 1 is general which

Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 925/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.924 To 926/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 To 2019-20)

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Anil Kumar Das
Section 143(1)Section 234B

return of income filed by the assesse. 3. The assessee is a financial institution incorporated in USA and residential status of the assesse is non-resident. The further relevant facts are discussed while adjudicating ground of appeal of the assessee as follows. 4. Ground No. 1 is general which

Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 924/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.924 To 926/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 To 2019-20)

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Anil Kumar Das
Section 143(1)Section 234B

return of income filed by the assesse. 3. The assessee is a financial institution incorporated in USA and residential status of the assesse is non-resident. The further relevant facts are discussed while adjudicating ground of appeal of the assessee as follows. 4. Ground No. 1 is general which

Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2017-18 Mentor Graphics Ireland Acit Ltd. Vs Circle-2 (2) (1) Plot No.7A/2, Sec-142, International Taxation Noida, U.P. New Delhi Pan No.Aagcm6365H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

India in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited wherein it has been held that the amount received by the non-resident from the India distributors/resellers towards supply/sale of software is not taxable in India as Royalty as per the provisions of the Act and AADT ... under :- The assessee company is a company incorporated in Ireland. As per Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 taxability of a non-resident is to be governed by the provisions of the Act or the DTAA whichever is more beneficial to the assessee. Payments for software are anyways

ACIT, Circle-18(1), New Delhi vs. Ncm (India) Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8766/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

payments amounting to Rs.3,49,74,918/- in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (“FTS”, for short) made by it to non-resident during the year under consideration, therefore, the same are not deductable in view of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment ... proceedings, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee failed to deduct TDS u/s 195 of the Act on the payments made to non-residents in the nature of “FTS” to the tune of Rs.3,49,74,918/-. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting

Igroup Infotech Inida Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-12(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1293/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

relevant Assessment year. 1. As per Section 40 (a)(i) of the Act, if the assessee has paid sum chargeable under the Act to Non-resident (M's Innovative Education Services PTE Ltd, Singapore), on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B of the Act and such ... first category deals with cases in which computer software is purchased directly by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer.3 (ii) The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign

Avaya International Sales Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 959/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

certain receipts at the hands of the assessee as Fees for Technical Services (FTS). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and a tax resident of Ireland. During the assessment years under dispute, the assessee received revenue for rendition of certain services. Relying upon

Avaya International Sales Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1149/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

certain receipts at the hands of the assessee as Fees for Technical Services (FTS). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and a tax resident of Ireland. During the assessment years under dispute, the assessee received revenue for rendition of certain services. Relying upon

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1361/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 9(1)(vii)

drawings and designs as Fee for Technical Services (FTS). 4. Briefly the facts relating to the issue in dispute are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Switzerland and a tax resident of Switzerland. As stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply ... assessee due to introduction of explanation under section 9(2) of the Act, which makes it clear that the income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under clause (v) or (vii) of sub-section (1) to section 9 and shall be included

Shri Suresh George, Alappuzha vs. The ADIT International Taxation, Thiruvananthapuram-3, Thiruvanathapuram

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

ITA 794/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194JSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

consequent to notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 12.8.2013, it was explained that Rs.76,46,473 received through telegraphic transfers in his non-resident (external) NRE account with ICICI 1 Suresh George vs. Asst. DIT Bank during the relevant year was not taxable under ... appeal. 3. We have considered the rival contentions, and perused the material of record. 3.1 It is not in dispute that the assessee, a non-resident, is working on a sea borne vessel, and his remuneration is in respect of services as an Electro Technical Officer abroad a ship

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Blue Dart Express Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1370/MUM/2022[1370]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 250

placed in decision in case of UOI VS. Tata Tea Ltd (2017) 398 ITR 260(SC). In this case the shareholder is a non-resident and taxability is guided by provision of DTAA between India and Singapore. It was stated that in an identical case of Giesecke & Devrient (India ... placed in decision in case of UOI VS. Tata Tea Ltd (2017) 398 ITR 260(SC). In this case the shareholder is a non-resident and taxability is guided by provision of DTAA between India and Singapore. It was stated that in an identical case of Giesecke & Devrient (India

Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit-7, New Delhi

ITA 6400/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 33Section 33(5)Section 33(7)Section 34Section 5Section 68

action of the Assessing Officer towards acceptance of credit arising from issue of shares amounting to Rs.79.77 crore stated to be received from non-residents. The Pr.CIT observed that the assessment order so passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that genuineness

Lease Plan India P.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 4714/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Lease Plan India P. Ltd., Versus Income-Tax Officer, C4C/332, Ground Floor, Ward 4(3), New Delhi. Janak Puri, New Delhi Pan: Aaacl6053B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate & Sh. Rachit Abhishek, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

rendered by way of the issuance of guarantee by Lease Plan Corporation NV was in India and therefore, the same was income of the non-resident in terms of section 9 of the Act. 3. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding

The Income Tax Officer, Internationaltaxation, Vijayawada vs. Krishna Mohan Malempati, Wellington Manor

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C

assessee’s bank accounts prior to demonetization would explain the nature and accounted sources of cash deposit of Rs. 90 lakhs made in the Non-Resident Ordinary (NRO) bank account of the assessee during the demonetization period ie on 24/11/2016, but without appreciating the fact that in the given

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Formerly Known As Novell Inc.), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 891/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

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 ... transaction will be limited to the amount of profit which is attributable to the agent's services, provided that (i) the non-resident principal's business activities in India are wholly channelled through his agent; (ii) the contracts to sell are made outside India; and (iii) the sales are made