← 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1717/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2016-17

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

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation -4(1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1462/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2016-17

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

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) -4 (1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1461/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

Taj Tv Ltd, Mauritius vs. DCIT (International Taxation)- 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1460/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

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 432 ITR 471 had clearly held that amounts paid by the resident end users to non-resident computer software manufacturer / suppliers for use of computer 33 IT(TP)A No.294/Bang/20201 M/s.Xchanging Solutions Limited software through EULA is not payment of royalty

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

ITO (It)2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Pravin Ambalal Dabi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6289/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

6289/Mum./2019 response thereto, the authorised representative of the assessee appeared and filed details. It was submitted that the assessee, who is a non-resident Indian, is not involved in any share transactions as mention in the reasons for reopening the assessment. In order to provide opportunity for hearing

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2978/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra, Sr. AR
Section 143Section 147Section 250

accounts. Venu Raman Kumar ITA No.2978/Mum./2018 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee is a non-resident Indian and has filed return of income, for the year under consideration, on 31/10/2007 declaring total income of Rs. 79,36,613. The reassessment ... provision of the Act. Thus, In my opinion and respectfully following the decision of several High Courts and tribunals, when the assessee is a non-resident having connected to bank account in a foreign country and with the Income not finding any evidence of it being received or deemed

Bhavani Gems P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 766/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Bhavani Gems Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Dw–1370, G–Block West Core, Tax–5, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb9471D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

crores and specified domestic transactions of Rs. 20.89 crores. Case of assessee was also selected for scrutiny for reason that large outward remittance to non-resident is made. It was also noted that the Bhavani Gems Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 16–17 assessment order dated 11.11.2018 has also allowed depreciation ... selected on any of the reasons, which are related to transfer pricing adjustment. Merely there are outbound remittances by the assessee to a non-resident does not show that there is a transfer pricing risk involved in the above case. In view of this, we find that according to Bhavani

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made to non-residents for salary costs, and why interest u/s. 201(1A) of the act should not be levied? The Ld.AO was of the opinion that ... computation of total income when the concept of profit element in payment is relevant. If the payment being FTS or royalty is made to non-resident, then the concept of total income becomes irrelevant and the provisions of sec. 44D recognize the gross payment chargeable to tax. Thus

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made to non-residents for salary costs, and why interest u/s. 201(1A) of the act should not be levied? The Ld.AO was of the opinion that ... computation of total income when the concept of profit element in payment is relevant. If the payment being FTS or royalty is made to non-resident, then the concept of total income becomes irrelevant and the provisions of sec. 44D recognize the gross payment chargeable to tax. Thus

M/S Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made to non-residents for salary costs, and why interest u/s. 201(1A) of the act should not be levied? The Ld.AO was of the opinion that ... computation of total income when the concept of profit element in payment is relevant. If the payment being FTS or royalty is made to non-resident, then the concept of total income becomes irrelevant and the provisions of sec. 44D recognize the gross payment chargeable to tax. Thus

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 366/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made to non-residents for salary costs, and why interest u/s. 201(1A) of the act should not be levied? The Ld.AO was of the opinion that ... computation of total income when the concept of profit element in payment is relevant. If the payment being FTS or royalty is made to non-resident, then the concept of total income becomes irrelevant and the provisions of sec. 44D recognize the gross payment chargeable to tax. Thus

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 365/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made to non-residents for salary costs, and why interest u/s. 201(1A) of the act should not be levied? The Ld.AO was of the opinion that ... computation of total income when the concept of profit element in payment is relevant. If the payment being FTS or royalty is made to non-resident, then the concept of total income becomes irrelevant and the provisions of sec. 44D recognize the gross payment chargeable to tax. Thus

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made to non-residents for salary costs, and why interest u/s. 201(1A) of the act should not be levied? The Ld.AO was of the opinion that ... computation of total income when the concept of profit element in payment is relevant. If the payment being FTS or royalty is made to non-resident, then the concept of total income becomes irrelevant and the provisions of sec. 44D recognize the gross payment chargeable to tax. Thus

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 363/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made to non-residents for salary costs, and why interest u/s. 201(1A) of the act should not be levied? The Ld.AO was of the opinion that ... computation of total income when the concept of profit element in payment is relevant. If the payment being FTS or royalty is made to non-resident, then the concept of total income becomes irrelevant and the provisions of sec. 44D recognize the gross payment chargeable to tax. Thus

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made to non-residents for salary costs, and why interest u/s. 201(1A) of the act should not be levied? The Ld.AO was of the opinion that ... computation of total income when the concept of profit element in payment is relevant. If the payment being FTS or royalty is made to non-resident, then the concept of total income becomes irrelevant and the provisions of sec. 44D recognize the gross payment chargeable to tax. Thus

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

within the stipulated period, final assessment order was passed on 30/04/2013 wherein the Ld.AO, further made disallowance of Rs.2,76,24,000/-, made to non-resident for non-reduction of TDS. 2.9 Against the disallowance is made by the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. The Ld.CIT ... Income tax act and therefore is liable for withholding of taxes. The contention of the appellant that the TDS was not made since the non-resident beneficiary had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is not tenable. Explanation 2 to section 195 of the Income tax Act clearly says that

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Private Limited'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2129/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

India- 20,73,260 International Singapore DTAA Total 38,75,435 c. The learned CIT(A) has failed fo adjudicate how the income of non-resident have accrued in India and has summarily held that the appellant was duty bound to deduct taxes on recruitment charges. d. The learned ... website, and allow to save data on the servers owned by the vendors. In this entire process, the assessee uses the services of various non-resident vendors whereby, the company procures hosting services, server space for posting the ads of its customers on the designated space of the vendors cloud