“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

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Maharashtra vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 445/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(2)

Ground: Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act: 9. During the course of assessment the A.O noticed that assessee has made payment to non-resident of Rs.55,160/- to ICIC prising U.K. and Rs.2,12,603/- to Platts USA. After considering the detailed submission filed by the assessee ... assessee. 11. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel could not controvert the fact that impugned payment made to the non-resident was not attracted by the provision of Sec. 195 of the Act, therefore, we don’t find any merit in this ground of appeal

M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(2)

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

deemed dividend is to be computed u/s 2(22)(a) of the Act, then the liability of DDT payable in respect of Appellant's non-resident shareholders is to be computed having regard to provisions of the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 5.3 The Appellant submits that the valuation adopted

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

Abbott India Ltd (As Successor to Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. Cit-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aaacu 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

education cess on income-tax and on dividend distribution tax paid during the year. Refund of dividend distribution tax paid in respect of non-resident shareholders: 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant prays that the Assessing Officer be directed ... dismissed as infructuous. 45. The additional ground No. two of the appeal relates to refund of dividend distribution tax paid in respect of non-resident shareholders. The learned Counsel of the assessee referred to the finding of the Tribunal in ITA No. 2671/Mum/2017, wherein 69 ABOTT INDIA LIMITED identical issue

Fosroc Chemicals (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 968/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 115

relates to the claim of the assessee that dividend distribution tax should be confined to the rate as per DTAA for dividend distributed to non-resident assessee. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has raised the above ground on the basis of the order rendered by the Delhi Bench

Shell Informaation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 996/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 270A

between India and The Netherlands (Treaty'). Section 90 of the Act read with the Circulars and several judicial precedents issued thereunder provide that a non-resident taxpayer is eligible to be assessed as per the provisions of the Act or as per the provisions of the relevant double taxation avoidance

Shellinformation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2308/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 270A

Owens Corning Composite Materials Llc, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)- Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6804/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6804/मुं/ 2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Owens-Corning Composite Materials Llc C/O.Owens Cornining (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aabco-4236-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short “The Act”] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Two Grounds. In Ground No.1 Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed The Findings Of Assessing Officer In Treating Amount Received On Reimbursement Of Software Supplied By The Assessee To Its Indian Subsidiary As ‘Royalty’. In Ground No.2 Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed Short Credit Of Tds.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

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

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. (ii) The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign ... then reselling the same to resident Indian end-users. (iii) The third category concerns cases wherein the distributor happens to be a foreign, non-resident vendor, who, after purchasing software from a foreign, non-resident seller, resells the same to resident Indian distributors or end-users. (iv) The fourth category

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the Assessee gave a description of the nature of services rendered by the non-residents Tyco International Management Co. USA (TIMCO) and Tyco International Asia, Inc., Singapore Tyco Asia, Inc., Singapore. The same is given as an annexure to this order. It was contended ... Assessee that the payment to the non-residents was for services provided by the AEs which are in the nature of management services namely, marketing and product development advisory services; fire and security global account sales support services; information technology support services; financial support services; human resource services; six sigma

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1526/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalrenaissance Services Bv, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 Pan: Aaecr4995E ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Paras Savla/Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

constitute FTS. (iii) ACIT Vs PCI Ltd. (2011112 taxmann.com 59 (Delhi The High Court observed that payments made by the assessee to a non-resident party for training its personnel or customers to explain to the proposed buyers the salient features of the products imported by the assessee in India ... constitute FTS (iii) ACIT Vs. PCI Ltd. (2011) 12 taxmann.com 59 (Delhi): The High Court observed that payments made by the assessee to a non-resident party for training its personnel or customers to explain to the proposed buyers the salient features of the products imported by the assessee

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Deval D Thakkar [Now Known As Smt Deval E Anthony], Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

ITA 968/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

million at the time of settling of the Second A.Ys.1999-2000 & 2004-05 Deval D. Thakkar Techna Trust, when he was a non-resident, out of his income earned from sources outside India. 4. The petitioner complains that despite such explanation, the revenue primarily relying upon his statement, issued ... assessee petitioner made a general and vague statement that during the period from AY 1984-85 to AY 2003-04 he was either Non-resident or Not Ordinarily Resident in India. No specific statement, averment or evidence was given as regards the status of the assessee

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

dividend. Furthermore, the interest rate may not exceed the market rate. Secondly, a 7.1 debt/equity ratio applies to debt if the creditor (resident or non-resident) is exempt or taxed at a reduced rate in respect of the interest paid on the debt. Interest relating to debt in excess ... abuse/limitation of benefit may be incorporated in the DTAAs also.’ 114. We are afraid that the weighty recommendations of the working group on non-resident taxation are again about what the law ought to be, and a pointer to the Parliament and the executive for incorporating suitable limitation provisions

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2092/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

treating the Appellant as "assessee in default" under section 201 of the Act in respect of the remittances made to the non-resident Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), Singapore. 2.2 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the remittances made to the non- resident SCB, Singapore were not taxable ... such there is no obligation to deduct taxes under section 195 of the Act. 2.3 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the non-resident SCB, Singapore does not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and as such the income earned by the non-resident would

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 721/CHNY/2020[2019-20 (April, 2018-September, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 195(2)

under section 248 of the Act and to declare that the assessee is not liable to pay TDS on payment to non-resident. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts and also analysis of various provisions of the Act, including DTAA between India and Germany, rejected the appeal filed ... manner in which cost should be shared by pool members. The assessee claims that the payment made to its parent company, a non-resident entity is reimbursement of expenses without any mark-up and to this effect, the assessee has filed an audit report of Deloitte GmbH, where, they certified

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 720/CHNY/2020[2018-19 (October, 2017 to March, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 195(2)

Shell India Markets P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 2340/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1492/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor, Tower -3 (Wing C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaacc-0460-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 5 (1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.1576/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2,Mumbai, World Trade Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 005 बनाम Vs. M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ltd. 1018, Maker Chambers –V, 10Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaics-1404-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha ,CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92C

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” A perusal of the above definition would show that eligible assessee mean any person in whose

DCIT, (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 1576/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha ,CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92C

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 1492/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha ,CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92C