← 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

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Group M Media (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3088/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, D.R
Section 115Section 250Section 37(1)

No.6997/M/2019 & ors. order dated 19.04.2023 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 by the domestic company shall ... rate mentioned in Section 115 O of the Act and not at the rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income.” 18. In view of the matter cross objection No.3 raised by the assessee is also

Netafim Ltd., Gujarat vs. DCIT Circle- 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16

Israel Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) read with India – Portugal DTAA. 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Israel and a tax resident of Israel. Being a tax resident of Israel, the assessee opted to be governed

Netafim Ltd., Gujarat vs. DCIT Circle- 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 1092/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16

Israel Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) read with India – Portugal DTAA. 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Israel and a tax resident of Israel. Being a tax resident of Israel, the assessee opted to be governed

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 845/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

borne and paid by the assessee on payments made in the nature of transponder fees to a non-resident although such transponder fees is not chargeable to tax in India. 4. The above grounds/sub-grounds are without prejudice to each other; 5. The appellant craves the leave to add, alter

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 844/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

borne and paid by the assessee on payments made in the nature of transponder fees to a non-resident although such transponder fees is not chargeable to tax in India. 4. The above grounds/sub-grounds are without prejudice to each other; 5. The appellant craves the leave to add, alter

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 843/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

borne and paid by the assessee on payments made in the nature of transponder fees to a non-resident although such transponder fees is not chargeable to tax in India. 4. The above grounds/sub-grounds are without prejudice to each other; 5. The appellant craves the leave to add, alter

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 842/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

borne and paid by the assessee on payments made in the nature of transponder fees to a non-resident although such transponder fees is not chargeable to tax in India. 4. The above grounds/sub-grounds are without prejudice to each other; 5. The appellant craves the leave to add, alter

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are resorted to learned

ITA 841/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, DR
Section 195Section 248Section 284

borne and paid by the assessee on payments made in the nature of transponder fees to a non-resident although such transponder fees is not chargeable to tax in India. 4. The above grounds/sub-grounds are without prejudice to each other; 5. The appellant craves the leave to add, alter

Rajesh Somnay, Mumbai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The Appeal is allowed

ITA 533/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 54

Hindu Succession Act. The Appellant had provided name and Permanent Account Number of the other two legal heirs both of whom were non-residents; and (c) the Hardship Compensation was not in the nature of receipt liable to tax in the hands of recipient (as contended during the reassessment proceedings

Shilpa Gautam, Mumbai vs. ITO, (Int Tx), Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 409/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthwaleFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 56(2)(Vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

therefore, the same are being taken up together hereinafter. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, a non-resident 3. individual, did not file return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Based upon the information received by the Assessing Officer that the Appellant has purchased

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 454/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92B

sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, “international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

case, the Learned AO has grossly erred in following an inconsistent approach by holding that the provisions of set-off are not applicable to non-residents since the same is contrary to the tax position adopted by its predecessors in the assessment orders for earlier years wherein the facts ... entitle the assessee to claim certain expenses as well as other benefits. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident partnership firm incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom (UK) and is a tax resident of UK. In the year 2010, the assessee entered into an agreement

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2145/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

case, the Learned AO has grossly erred in following an inconsistent approach by holding that the provisions of set-off are not applicable to non-residents since the same is contrary to the tax position adopted by its predecessors in the assessment orders for earlier years wherein the facts ... entitle the assessee to claim certain expenses as well as other benefits. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident partnership firm incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom (UK) and is a tax resident of UK. In the year 2010, the assessee entered into an agreement

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 890/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92B

sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, “international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 889/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92B

sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, “international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other

Dominic Savio Dasilva, Usa vs. CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1403/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69A

appeal by learned first appellate authority, that too, in limine without condoning the delay. 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident Indian staying in United States of America (USA). As could be seen from AY: 2017-18 the materials on record, the assessee owns a property ... entrusted to look after the appeal, did not comply with the notices. Considering the fact that the assessee is a non-resident, the aforesaid explanation certainly appears plausible. In any case of the matter, the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) does not reveal whether any reasonable opportunity of being

Prashant Chandra Sadh, Mumbai vs. ITO International Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 619/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Chandrasadh, Ito,(Intltax),C4(2)(1), C-1804, Oberoi Woods, Room.No.1708, बनाम/ Off Western Express Air India Building, Vs. Highway,Goregaon East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400063. Mumba-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Biips5544N (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 68

619/Mum/2022 Prashant Chandra Sadh. Mumbai 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and has not filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15.The Assessing Officer (AO) has received information as per NMS(P1) that

Chetan Lachmandas Bhatia, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 386/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychetan Lachmandas Ito, Bhatia, C-309, 3Rd (International बनाम/ Floor, Atul Nagar Tower, Tax)-1(2)(1), Vs. Mathwadas, Ext. Road, Mumbai. Irani Wadi No.3, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aotpb9588F (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 13.12.2022 Passed By Ito, International Tax-1(2)(1), Mumbai ( In Short ‘ The Assessing Officer) For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15, Pursuant To The Direction Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) Dated 28.11.2022. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Alongwith Form No.36 Were Revised By The Assessee. The Revised Grounds Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148

before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that during the relevant year, the assessee was a non-resident. The assessee did not file its return of income for the year under consideration. Subsequently, the AO re-opened

DCIT Circle 8(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. . Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1638/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder(s), which attracts Additional Income resident shareholder(s), which attracts Additional Income resident shareholder(s), which attracts Additional Income Tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) referred ... rate of tax applicable to the non the Act and not at the rate of tax applicable to the non-resident M/s Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. M/s Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. 9 ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. ITA Nos. No. 1637 & 1638/M/2021 &Ors. shareholder(s) as specified