non-resident — 3,736 case laws

Ananya Ajay Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC6 (4), Mumbai

ITA 6949/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6949/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6950/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 576/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR

Section 153ASection 2Section 6(1)(b)Section 6(1)(c)

credit balance in the foreign bank account, the important fact which was missed to decide that, whether the assessee was resident or non-resident, during the relevant assessment years or not was not adjudicated 4 I.T.A. No. 6949/Mum/2019 Ananya Ajay Mittal which issue was raised vide ground ... without appreciating that the Ld. assessing officer made addition after considering the appellant as "Resident" even though it is admitted fact that he was non-resident and the assessment order also is passed assessing him as "Non-Resident". 4. The brief facts qua the limited issue is that, assessee

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5193/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

erred in levying interest under section 2348 of the Act amount to INR 2,08,486 disregarding the fact that the Appellant is a non-resident assessee and its entire revenues/ receipts are subject to tax withholding in India under section 195 of the Act and the Appellant ... turn to the case laws relied on by the Ld. DR. In the case of Cargo Community Network (P.) Ltd. (supra), the assessee, a non-resident company has its registered office at Singapore. It is engaged in the business of providing access to an internet based air cargo portal known

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7248/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

erred in levying interest under section 2348 of the Act amount to INR 2,08,486 disregarding the fact that the Appellant is a non-resident assessee and its entire revenues/ receipts are subject to tax withholding in India under section 195 of the Act and the Appellant ... turn to the case laws relied on by the Ld. DR. In the case of Cargo Community Network (P.) Ltd. (supra), the assessee, a non-resident company has its registered office at Singapore. It is engaged in the business of providing access to an internet based air cargo portal known

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7247/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

erred in levying interest under section 2348 of the Act amount to INR 2,08,486 disregarding the fact that the Appellant is a non-resident assessee and its entire revenues/ receipts are subject to tax withholding in India under section 195 of the Act and the Appellant ... turn to the case laws relied on by the Ld. DR. In the case of Cargo Community Network (P.) Ltd. (supra), the assessee, a non-resident company has its registered office at Singapore. It is engaged in the business of providing access to an internet based air cargo portal known

Bhupendra Surani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2004/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2004/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2010-11) Shri Bhupendra Surani B-2005, Chandanbala Chs R.R. Thakkar Marg, Walkeshwar Mumbai 400006 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bjaps5716D बनाम Vs. Addl. Cit, Central Circle 15 & 16 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 2(24)(iv)Section 250

basis of presumptions, surmises and conjectures.” 3. Shri Vijay Mehta Appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non-resident individual and is engaged in the business of trading in diamonds. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... paper book), filed objection against the appointment of Special Auditor. Alongwith the objections the assessee pointed that the assessee is a non-resident. Mainly the source of income is on account of dividend received and foreign remittance in the accounts are from the assessee’s account outside India. Copies

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

erred in levying interest under section 2348 of the Act amount to INR 2,08,486 disregarding the fact that the Appellant is a non-resident assessee and its entire revenues/ receipts are subject to tax withholding in India under section 195 of the Act and the Appellant ... turn to the case laws relied on by the Ld. DR. In the case of Cargo Community Network (P.) Ltd. (supra), the assessee, a non-resident company has its registered office at Singapore. It is engaged in the business of providing access to an internet based air cargo portal known

General Electric Company, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 82/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

persons and is sending these employees on assignments to GE entries located worldwide. From this premises, other entities incorporated in India as well as non-resident entities of the GE group are also operating. 3. During the course of survey, statement of Shri Rupak Shah, who is employed with ... such PE is taxable in India. The company has not filed return of income for any year. 11. The business of various GE group non-resident companies in India is being conducted by the expatriate employees of GE group (who are employed by GE group company and deputed to India

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

persons and is sending these employees on assignments to GE entries located worldwide. From this premises, other entities incorporated in India as well as non-resident entities of the GE group are also operating. 3. During the course of survey, statement of Shri Rupak Shah, who is employed with ... such PE is taxable in India. The company has not filed return of income for any year. 11. The business of various GE group non-resident companies in India is being conducted by the expatriate employees of GE group (who are employed by GE group company and deputed to India

Amee Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

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

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT

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

Therefore, according to him, the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s.195 of the Act in respect of payments made to non-resident AE’s towards purchase of software and therefore in case of failure will attract disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Hence, he confirm the action ... Taxmann.com 42 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “the amount paid by resident Indian and end-user / distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers / suppliers , as consideration for resale / use of computer software through EULAs / distribution agreement, is not payment of royalty for use of copyright

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the revenue’s corresponding grounds stand dismissed

ITA 1322/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143Section 160(1)Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

failed to appreciate that the disallowance made u/s 40(a) (a) towards non deduction of tax at source on payment to non-resident towards legal and trade mark expenses. 2.2 The Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition after holding that payment was not in the nature ... section 160(1) r.w.s 163(1), the assessee company has to be considered as a representative assessee since the company is making payment to non-resident. As the amount has been debited to P&.L account, the source of payment is only in India. 3.1) The Ld CIT(A) failed

ACIT -893) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Triple Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assistant

Asssitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Syed Akhtar, Hyderabad

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

ITA 299/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Syed Akhtar, Tolichowki, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Artps8131N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. 19.12.2022 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

details commencing from 01.07.2017. He had also submitted that even the ld.CIT(A) has not examined whether the creditors Umra 5 Qureshi was a non-resident during the relevant period or not. The ld.DR had also submitted that the assessee besides submitting bank account statements, had not furnished any proof

Sakshi Rajan Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2095/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2095/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sakshi Rajan Gupta बिधम/ Acit Circle Int Tax- 6, Pankaj Mahal, 2Nd Floor, 1(3)(1) Vs. Jt Siphimalani Marg, Mumbai. Churchgate-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afjpg9115Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pritesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 Dated 09.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Not Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee Before Passing The Assessment Order Wherein He Has Disallowed The Expenses Of Rs.28,79,641/- Claimed By The Assessee (Non-Resident).

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. DR)

proper opportunity to the assessee before passing the assessment order wherein he has disallowed the expenses of Rs.28,79,641/- claimed by the assessee (non-resident). 3. Brief facts the AO noted is that the assessee is a non-resident and has filed the return of income ... Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. Undisputed facts are that the assessee is non-resident who is residing along with her husband at Dubai. She is a licensed agent of Tata AIA and ICICI Lombard. According to the assessee