← 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

Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3440/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

legal issue in respect of notice issued u/s.148 as barred by limitation. 5. Brief facts of the matter are that assessee is a non-resident who filed his return of income on 25.09.2015 reporting total income at Rs.1,57,75,430/-. This was subsequently revised on 28.12.2016 with revised total

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place

ITA 4092/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

clear-cut business connection in India. The arguments of the assessee on this account are flawed 9.10.3. Further, the total income of Non-Resident Re-insurer like assessee would be chargeable to tax in India, if income is i. Received or is deemed to be received in India. ii. Accrues ... around Indian exposures, the income can only be regarded as having accrued or arisen in India. He further observes that the income of a non-resident reinsurer is chargeable to tax if it is received in India or if it accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have

ITA 3178/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

clear-cut business connection in India. The arguments of the assessee on this account are flawed 9. 10. 3. Further, the total income of Non-Resident Re-insurer like assessee would be chargeable to tax in India, if income is i. Received or is deemed to be received in India ... around Indian exposures, the income can only be regarded as having accrued or arisen in India. He further observes that the income of a non-resident reinsurer is chargeable to tax if it is received in India or if it accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise

Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode

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

ITA 774/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi .......... Appellant 4/61, Pudukkudi House, Ponmundam P.O. (Via) Tirur 676106 [Pan: Afepp4646J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Kochi [CIT(A)] dated 09.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual non-resident Indian. The appellant is also Chairman of M/s. Tharif Builders Pvt. Ltd. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Income ... taxability of the remittances of money from abroad. The general position, in this regard, is clarified below : (2) Money brought into India by non-residents for investments or other purposes is not liable to Indian income-tax. Therefore, there is no question of a remittance into the country being subjected

Waterworld Tourism Company Private Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

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

ITA 726/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Water World Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Room No. 18, Municipal Shopping Centre Zilla Court Ward, Opp. Boat Jetty Thathampally S.O., Alappuzha 688013 [Pan: Aabcm3387L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1& Tps, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Thomas Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

from abroad. The general position, in this regard, is clarified below : 7 Water World Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd. (2) Money brought into India by non-residents for investments or other purposes is not liable to Indian income-tax. Therefore, there is no question of a remittance into the country being ... Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd. the person from whom he receives; a person cannot receive a thing from himself. 27. Admittedly, the appellant herein is Non-Resident for the last 30 years for income tax purpose and citizen of USA. The scope of tax liability of Non-Resident is required

Gagandeep Kaur, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Mohali, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prem Singh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153C

shown in the database itself, which, as was explained before us, was meant to indicate bank payment. 3.1 The assessee, being a non-resident residing in Australia at the relevant time, was stated to have arranged the payment through banking channels via a pay order issued from the bank account

Penninti Vivekananda Rao, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1494/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1494/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Penninti Vivekananda Vs. Adit (International Rao, Hyderabad Taxation)-2 Pan:Ayupp1895L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.07.2025 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 270A

Penninti Vivekananda Rao 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual who filed his return of income for A.Y. Page 2 of 11 ITA No 1494 of 2025 Penninti Vivekananda Rao 2020-21 on 02.12.2020, declaring a total income of Rs.5

Praveen Kumar Diddige, Medak vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1370/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1370/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year – 2017-2018 Praveen Kumar The Income Tax Officer, Diddige, Medak Ward-1, Sangareddy. Vs. Pin – 502 291. Pin – 502001. Pan Aeapd8792G Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pv Raghavendra Kumar िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: & Ca K A Sai Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri R. Kumaran, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: And CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri R. Kumaran, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute between the parties that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessment has been reopened u/sec.147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated

Shell India Markets Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 4828/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 40Section 92C

Appellant to benchmark the aforesaid international transaction. 5.4 Adopting an inconsistent approach vis-à-vis the approach adopted by the Ld. TPO/AO of the non-resident AEs and without appreciating that the factum of services stands accepted in the hands of such AEs 5.5 Adopting an inconsistent approach

Kisan International Trading Fze, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 6152/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115A(5)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 251

under the NMS. Para 5 of the said instruction reads as under: 9 'If no return is required to be filed in the case (non-resident etc.), the Assessing Officer should mark "No return is required" and mention reason for the same in NMS which needs to be confirmed ... tangible material in possession and alleged escapement of income. In the present case, the AO is aware of the fact that the assessee is non-resident company and the funds were transferred thru the legal channel and also came to know about the source of source was from the non

Rishnoor Kaur, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 476/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Dhiman, Advocate (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)

submitted that the delay was fully explained, bona fide and neither deliberate nor intentional. It was emphasised that the assessee is a non-resident and had acted diligently by handing over the papers to her counsel. The subsequent misplacement of documents and the shifting of office premises were administrative lapses ... shall also strictly follow the procedure prescribed under section 144C of the Act, wherever applicable, keeping in view the assessee’s status as a non-resident and any consequential requirement of issuing a draft assessment order, providing the assessee a further opportunity before the Dispute Resolution Panel, and completing

Fakhruddin Bhura, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5562/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Rajshirkhe, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 154Section 249(4)(b)

section 249(4) of the Act. 7. Before us, it is contented by the ld.AR that the assessee is an Individual who is a Non-Resident living in Kuwait since birth and working there since 1997 and the salary income earned there was the source of income

Gaurava Mishra, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(8), Surat

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

ITA 104/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Gaurav Mishra, Vs. Ito, Present Address: - Ward -3 (2)(8), 80, Bayshore Road, Unit No.28, Surat (Costa Del Sol), Singapore – 46992 Permanent Address: 605, Spathik Shilla, Sundar Nagar Purani Basti, So Raipur – 492001, C.G., India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amkpm6042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Veekass Sharma, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250

illegal, bad-in-law & void-ab-initio inasmuch as the residential status of the assessee in the year under consideration was "non-resident", thus, the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was vested with Learned ITO (IT & TP) and certainly neither with ITA No.104/SRT/2025/AY 2012-13 Gaurav Mishra

Jamyang Khyentse Yeshi, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT, DCIT, C.R. Building, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 604/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A), After Calling For A Remand Report Under Rule 46A, Recorded The Following Findings (Para 5.1 To 5.5 Of The Appellate Order):

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prem Singh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a non-resident individual, was subjected to reassessment proceedings on the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer that cash deposits and credit-card payments aggregating ... remand report filed by the Assessing Officer and the supporting material placed on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee, being a non-resident during the relevant previous year, had transferred a sum of Rs. 25,07,984 from his foreign bank account maintained in the U.S.A

Preity G Zinta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4199/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Preity G Zinta Income Tax Officer, Int Tax, 403 Parishram, Ward 4(3)(1), Smt. Nergish Dutt Road, Mumbai Bandra West Vs. Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaapz2650B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita Nara, Advocates Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi and Ms. Vinita Nara, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

Tribunal against the final assessment order passed pursuant to directions of ld. DRP u/s. 144C(5) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. Assessee is a non-resident individual working as a film actress. She filed her return of income on 26.06.2016 reporting total income at Rs. 46,20,340. Based

Rajnish Kasturchand Ostwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward, 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

under section 69 on the allegation that the investment in a residential property during the relevant year was unexplained. 2. The assessee is a Non-Resident Indian who had been living and working in Dubai since 2001 and returned to India only in 2021. During the relevant previous year ... After hearing both sides and carefully examining the material placed on record, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian who had been living and working in Dubai continuously since 2001 and returned to India only in 2021. It is equally undisputed that

Sanjay Paul, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2053/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: the CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed belatedly by 316 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, declining to condone the delay, and consequently did not adjudicate the matter on merits.5. It is also seen from the record that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite issue of notices on various occasions. The appeal was, therefore, decided ex parte and the order of the Assessing Officer was sustained.

Section 144Section 147Section 250

assessment year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a Non-Resident (NRI). The case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice under Section 147 of the Act, pursuant to which proceedings were carried out under Section 144.In response ... order of the Assessing Officer was sustained. 6. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian and, due to his absence from India and lack of proper communication, he could not respond in time to the notices issued

Nitika Rashmi Jhaveri, United Arab Emirates vs. Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5510/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2012-13

Section 250

non compliance before the CIT(A). 5. Considering the entire factual position as explained before me to the effect that the assessee is non-resident Indian and During the period, when assessment order was passed in her case, the assessee was not having any access to her Indian mobile number

Bharti Mukesh Chandarana, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Tax) Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 4972/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Bharti Mukesh Chandarana, Income Tax Officer Ward No. 64, Balasinor Society, S.V. Road, Vs 2(1)(1) Mumbai, Room No. 618, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067, Maharashtra Bhawan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, [Pan No. Aacpc 4520F] Int Tax Ward, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153(2)Section 253

promissory note found in the course of search action in case of JessesLal does not have signature of the appellant. Moreover, appellant is a non-resident of India and was not present in India on the day when such promissory note was prepared and thus, it cannot be said that ... above grounds whenever required. 2. Brief facts of the case as extracted from the orders of lower authorities are that assessee is a non-resident Indian (NRI), and has not filed her Bharti Mukesh Chandarana original return of income for assessment year2017 -18. The assessing officer received information about cash

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited(Formerly Knowns As Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4359/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-
Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

acknowledging that the payments were made to resident contractors, erred in upholding the applicability of section 40(a)(i), which squarely applies only to non-resident payments. 6. In view of the above grounds of appeal, the Appellant prays that the disallowance amounting to INR 2,66,72,729 under ... source under Clause 21(b)(i) of the Form instead of Clause 21(b)(ii) of the Form which pertains to payments to non-residents where disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is made. The ld AR during the course of hearing took the bench through the breakup