“non-resident”

Warner Bros. Distributing Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blewarner Bros. Distributing Inc. V. Acit (It)-4(3)(2) C/O. Warnere Bros. Pictures India Private Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Floor 407, 4Th Floor, Windfall, Air India Building Sahar Plaza Complex Nariman Point Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaacw6559R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.F. Jahangir Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

assessee. In response AR of the assessee attended and submitted the information as called for. 3. Assessee, Warner Bros. Distributing Inc., is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in the United States of America. Its activities, inter alia, include, export of films from USA, produced either by its group studios ... definition of Permanent Establishment. 11) We have examined this aspect also. As rightly held by the CIT (A) even if income arises to the Non-Resident due to the business connection in India, the income accruing or arising out of such business connection can only be taxed to the extent

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income-tax Act, 1961 having regards to the beneficial rate as per the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for dividends paid to non-resident shareholders, should be directed to be refund to the Appellant.” Ground No 5: Deduction in respect of education cess On the facts ... 115O of the Act, having regard to the beneficial rate as per the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for dividends paid to non-resident shareholders, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the 10 ITA NO. 655 & 749/MUM/2017

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

issued and duly served on the assessee. A.O. assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 7, 35, 77,139/-. The assessee is non-resident having the sources of income in India. During the relevant Financial Years (FY) he has shown Income from Business and Capital Gains on sale

Hira Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax -8 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the ld.AO sought to verify and examine the allotment of shares by the assessee company to its non-resident shareholders viz., Mr. Girish Hiranandani and Mr. Manish Hiranandani as under:- Particulars Mr Girish Hiranandani Mr Manish Hiranandani for for 50,00,266 equity ... share) Total 5,50,02,926 (A) 3,89,31,354(B) Grand Total (A+B) 9,39,34,280 3.1. The above two non-resident shareholders were allotted shares @Rs.11/- per share comprising of face value of Rs.10/- and premium of Re.1 per share. The assessee in response

Shri Bhanumurthy Venkata Ranga Satya Tirumalasetty, Mumbai vs. DCIT Centralised Processing Cell -TDS, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Bhanu Murthy Venkata Ranga Dcit Centralized Processing Satya Tirumalasetty, Cell-Tds, Flat No. 1504, Valentine Tower, Vs. Cpc, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector-3, Pimpri Pada, Film City Road, Vaishali, Malad (West), Gaziabad, U.P.-201010. Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Abdpt 7966 J Appellant Respondent

payment of non on the tax deducted by the assessee on payment of non on the tax deducted by the assessee on payment of non-residents. It is undisputed that paym is undisputed that payment made to the deductee is between ent made to the deductee is between ₹50 lakhs ... argument of the appellant has focused on the determination has focused on the determination of taxable income of the of taxable income of the non-resident deductee/payee by the Assessing Officer. resident deductee/payee by the Assessing Officer. resident deductee/payee by the Assessing Officer. However, However, the same is not applicable

DCIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Zoomin Online India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal are dismissed

owner of the search engine was considered to be business receipt / business profit in the hands of the owner of search engine who is non-resident and in the absence of permanent establishment (PE) in India, the business profits / business receipts received by them were not chargeable

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

expenses and Rs. 1,19,27,329, on account of legal and professional M/s. Sitel India Limited ITA no. 6875/Mum./2014 expenses to various non-residents. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish explanation with regard to applicability of provision of section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non ... compliance of the provisions of the Act relating to TDS, while making such payments to non-residents. In reply, assessee submitted that the above payments are in the nature reimbursement of expenses incurred by its associated enterprises on behalf of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer vide order passed under

Jivaram B. Sutar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jivaram B. Suthar, Deputy Commission Of Income Tax, 7, Safalya Jeevan Chs Ltd., Cpc, R. Narkar Road, Vs. Mumbai. Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-400077. Pan No. Asnpb 4238 J Appellant Respondent

under the Act, which is payable outside India or in India chargeable under the Act, which is payable outside India or in India to non-resident and tax is not deducted, then said entire amount is resident and tax is not deducted, then said entire amount is resident ... respect of non- The section 40(a)(i) is allowance in respect of non deduction of payment to no deduction of payment to non-resident and therefore, the said resident and therefore, the said provision is not applicable in the case of the assessee. provision is not applicable

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

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

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

When the assessee was asked to submit details of TDS on these foreign remittances, assessee responded that the payments were made to non-residents of India and they do not have any branch or permanent establishment in India. Therefore, the payments are not deemed to accrue or arise in India ... grounds raised in appeal, relevant part of which is reproduced as under: "Ground No.I The Appellant submits that the commission paid to non-resident agents was for procuring export orders outside India. These agents were rendering services outside India. 4 M/s. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., The Appellant also submit that

Centroid Capital Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(2) (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Centroid Capital Private Limited, Ito-9(2)(2), 8, Ajanta, Veera Desai Road, Room No. 601A, 6Th Floor, Andheri (West), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcc 4546 R Appellant Respondent

assessee submitted that the Director of the assessee counsel of the assessee submitted that the Director of the assessee- company is a non-resident Indian and residing resident Indian and residing in New Jersey, USA New Jersey, USA since August 2001. The Ld. counsel has filed a copy of affidavit

Interactive Avenues Pvt. Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us :-

Officer. The Assessing Officer has proceeded on the basis that as per the provisions of Section 195 of the Act any amount paid to non-resident will attract this provision and the assessee is liable to make TDS except as provided under Section 195(2) or under Section 197 where ... person "may make an application" as may be prescribed. In the present case, the assessee was very well aware that Facebook, Ireland is a non-resident and the advertisement payment made to Facebook, Ireland will not come under the purview of TDS and, therefore, has chosen not to deduct