← 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

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Usa vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 863/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7-1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising ... transaction will be limited to the amount of profit which is attributable to the agent's services, provided that (i) the non-resident principal's business activities in India are wholly channelled through his agent; (ii) the contracts to sell are made outside India; and (iii) the sales are made

DDIT(It) 1(2) vs. Clough Projects International Pty. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by revenue and CO’s filed by the assessee are treated as dismissed

ITA 2952/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2952/Mum/2010 & Cross Objection No. 09/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4930/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No. 61/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4931/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No. 62/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri PurushottamFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Thakkar
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 44B

Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein the facts were as under:- The assessee, a non-resident company, incorporated in Korea, had entered into an agreement with ONGC for designing, fabrication, hook-up and commissioning of some platform in Bombay High

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

deducted tax at source on the amount of Rs.11.42 crores, 8 M/s Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as the said payment was made to non-residents. It was contended that the above said payment is not liable for deduction of tax at source. It was also submitted that the above ... supra:- 10 M/s Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. “25. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The payment in question was made to the non-resident in the previous year relevant to AY. 10-11. Therefore the law as on 31.3.2010 the last date of the previous year was that

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. The ACIT (Int. Tax) 2(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 2040/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranith Golecha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 234BSection 9

Appeal No(s). 8733-8734/2018) (vide order dated 02 March 2021) held that the amount paid by resident Indian end users/ distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/ suppliers, is not payment for royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and held that such income shall

Galax E Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 389/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.389/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Galax E Solutions India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Unit No.4, 8Th Floor, Innovator Block, Itpl, Circle -3(1)(1), Bangalore, Whitefield Road, Bangalore 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 9007 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. J. Brito, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit, Dr. Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.5.2021 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Correctness Of Determination Of Arm’S Length Price In Respect Of An International Transaction U/S.92 Of The Act. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company In Usa. In Terms Of The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri. C. J. Brito, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

transaction of providing SWD Services was an “international transaction” i.e., 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

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 301/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.301/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Plot No.21 Bidadi Industrial Area, Circle –2, Ltu, Bidadi, Ramanagara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-562 109. Pan : Aabct 5590 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

require adjudication. 7. The other grounds which require adjudication is ground Nos.15 to 20 with regard to rate of tax on dividend distributed to non-resident shareholders. The said grounds read as follows: II. Corporate tax 15. The learned AO erred in not providing any reason(s) for not accepting ... Company's contention that taxes on dividend paid to the non-resident shareholders should be restricted to the rates mentioned in the relevant tax treaty. Without prejudice to the above 16. The learned AO / Hon' ble DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that Dividend Distribution Tax (`DDT') under section

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

payable by the company distributing dividends) cannot exceed 10%, as such, the assessee ought to have been correctly assessed to DDT @ 10%, since the non-resident shareholder is a tax resident of Germany. As per CBDT Circular No.14 (XL-35), the AO cannot take advantage of ignorance of the assessee

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

payable by the company distributing dividends) cannot exceed 10%, as such, the assessee ought to have been correctly assessed to DDT @ 10%, since the non-resident shareholder is a tax resident of Germany. As per CBDT Circular No.14 (XL-35), the AO cannot take advantage of ignorance of the assessee

DCIT Cir. 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Smartconnect Technologies Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1317/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Smartconnect Dcit Cir – 15(3)(2), Tehcnologies Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, बिधम/ A-702, Harbour View, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. Sector-19, Nerul, Navi K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 706 400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaocs87763B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Rajesh S. Shah, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)

For Appellant: Shri Milind ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh S. Shah
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

modification to the users/ customers in India can be reckoned as „royalty‟. It is undisputed fact that the payment has been made to non-resident entity at Singapore and therefore, the scope and ambit of „Royalty‟ has to be seen qua the definition given in Article 12 of India Singapore ... 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, 12 I.T.A. No. 1317/Mum/2020 M/s Smartconnect

ACIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industrial Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5688/MUM/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5688/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Reliance Acit (Ltu-2), Industries Ltd. 29Th Floor, Centre-1, बिधम/ Maker Chamber Iv, World Trade Center, 3Rd Floor, 222, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacr5055K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.06.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-57

For Appellant: Shri Milind ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld
Section 195Section 195(1)

Courts in favour of the Appellant and I am inclined to follow the same. I accordingly hold as under: 4.3.7. In the case of non-resident, covered by DTAA, the provisions of DTAA would be applicable, if they are beneficial to non-resident as per section ... from undertaking benchmarking services of SPI. Once the similar nature of payment not been treated as FIS, albeit as business income of the said non-resident entity which does not have PE in India, then the said payment cannot be taxed in India. 10. From the perusal of the agreement

Cerner Healthcare Solution India Private Limited(Earlier Known As Cerner India Health Services Private Limited) ( Erstwhile Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 254/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

assessee and later cross charged to the same to the assessee at cost basis. The assessee submitted that salary payments to a non-resident is excluded from the ambit of withholding tax provisions u/s. 195 relating to nonresidents as it is covered separately under provisions for withholding taxes on salary ... expenses are mere reimbursement of communication charges paid by the assessee to Cerner Corporation and do not constitute income in the hands of the non-resident. The assessee also contended that Cerner IT(TP)A No.254/Bang/2021 Page 10 of 14 Corporation USA is not a rendering any services

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1073/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

arising from the order of A.O u/s 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, directing the assessee to withhold tax on payment to non-resident companies. Identical grounds have been raised in same set of facts and circumstances, 2 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT ... Bombay High Court in the case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 1487 of 2018) held that transponder charges paid to non-resident is not taxable as royalty. While doing so the honourable Bombay High Court has relied on Delhi High Court order in the case of Asia

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1071/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

arising from the order of A.O u/s 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, directing the assessee to withhold tax on payment to non-resident companies. Identical grounds have been raised in same set of facts and circumstances, 2 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT ... Bombay High Court in the case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 1487 of 2018) held that transponder charges paid to non-resident is not taxable as royalty. While doing so the honourable Bombay High Court has relied on Delhi High Court order in the case of Asia

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1070/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

arising from the order of A.O u/s 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, directing the assessee to withhold tax on payment to non-resident companies. Identical grounds have been raised in same set of facts and circumstances, 2 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT ... Bombay High Court in the case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 1487 of 2018) held that transponder charges paid to non-resident is not taxable as royalty. While doing so the honourable Bombay High Court has relied on Delhi High Court order in the case of Asia

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1069/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

arising from the order of A.O u/s 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, directing the assessee to withhold tax on payment to non-resident companies. Identical grounds have been raised in same set of facts and circumstances, 2 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT ... Bombay High Court in the case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 1487 of 2018) held that transponder charges paid to non-resident is not taxable as royalty. While doing so the honourable Bombay High Court has relied on Delhi High Court order in the case of Asia

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1066/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

arising from the order of A.O u/s 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, directing the assessee to withhold tax on payment to non-resident companies. Identical grounds have been raised in same set of facts and circumstances, 2 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT ... Bombay High Court in the case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 1487 of 2018) held that transponder charges paid to non-resident is not taxable as royalty. While doing so the honourable Bombay High Court has relied on Delhi High Court order in the case of Asia

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

arising from the order of A.O u/s 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, directing the assessee to withhold tax on payment to non-resident companies. Identical grounds have been raised in same set of facts and circumstances, 2 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT ... Bombay High Court in the case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 1487 of 2018) held that transponder charges paid to non-resident is not taxable as royalty. While doing so the honourable Bombay High Court has relied on Delhi High Court order in the case of Asia

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 988/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee is an Indian company engaged in the business of providing business process outsourcing services. The following payments were made by the assessee to non-residents after grossing up the invoice amount and TDS thereon in accordance with the provisions of section 195A of the Income ... grossing up had been made out of the assessee’s own funds and under protest and TDS Certificates will not be issued to the non-residents. 4. The assessee filed an application before the CIT(Appeals) u/s. 248 of the Act for a declaration that payments made to non-residents

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 987/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee is an Indian company engaged in the business of providing business process outsourcing services. The following payments were made by the assessee to non-residents after grossing up the invoice amount and TDS thereon in accordance with the provisions of section 195A of the Income ... grossing up had been made out of the assessee’s own funds and under protest and TDS Certificates will not be issued to the non-residents. 4. The assessee filed an application before the CIT(Appeals) u/s. 248 of the Act for a declaration that payments made to non-residents

DCIT (It)-4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Taj Tv. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1718/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the income received from the assessee by other non-residents being in the nature of up-linking charges have arisen in India and accordingly tax should have been deducted at source on this payment ... erred in holding that section 40 (a) (i) of the Act was not applicable on payments made to non-residents for programming rights, transponder charges and up-linking charges on the ground that these payments did not constitute royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act or under the respective