← 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

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 1851/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

Veena G. Netto, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-57, Mumbai

ITA 1594/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhveena G. Netto Vs. Commissioner Of Income B-207, Hill Crest,-1, Tax (Appeals)-57 Raheja Vihar, Opp Mumbai – 400 021 Chandevali Farm Road, Powai, Mumbai – 400072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ahkpn7043F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 144Section 234BSection 234CSection 271

assessee has also attached the affidavit explaining the reason for delay in filing the instant appeal. The assessee stated that he was a non-resident in India in A.Y. 2015-16. He was residing outside of India (in Dubai & USA) from 01.04.2018 to 14.08.2021 and visited India from

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4378/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Ashok BansalFor Respondent: T. Shankar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

substance in the Petitioners case that neither the capital receipts received by the Petitioner on issue of equity shares to its holding company, a non-resident entity, nor the alleged short-fall between the so called fair market price of its equity shares and the issue price of the equity

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Irunway India Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. Regus Business Center, Office Circle – 3(1)(1), No.1015, Bengaluru. 10Th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 003. Pan : Aabci 5613 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37Section 40

casts an obligation on an Indian company that is liable to make payment of a sum chargeable to income-tax in India to a non-resident to withhold tax at source at the applicable rates in force. A foreign company is liable to income-tax in India, inter alia ... taxable in India. As per sub-clause (b) of clause (vii) of sub-section (I) to section 9 of the Act, income of non-resident includes income by way of 'fees for technical services' payable by a person who is a resident, except where the fees are payable in respect

Chalk Farm Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Thane

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

ITA 906/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.906/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) बनधम/ Chalk Farm Ventures Pvt. Pcit-1 Ltd. B Wing, Ashar It Park, Vs. 6Th Floor, Wagle No.202, Delta Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Industrial Estate, Thane- Mumbai-400076. 400604 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcc0332A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Parikh Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2016-17 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “Ground A: Proceeding U/S 263 Of The It Act Is Invalid & Bad In Law 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1, (Pr. Cit) Erred In Facts & In Passing The Order U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Appellant Company Was Under Liquidation & No Order U/S. 263 Could Be Passed Without Giving Adequate Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company. 2. He Appellant Prays That Your Honour Hold That The Order Passed By The Ao U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Passed Without Issuing Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 371(1)

consideration for issue of shares is received by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund or from non-residents. 8 A.Y. 2016-17 Further, the preference shares have been issued at around the same time at Rs. 1,88,737/- per share

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

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

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

them.... " 22.7. The Supreme Court has thus emphasised that interpretation of DTAA shall go hand in hand with OECD commentary. This is so because non-resident tax payers should not be made to linger in uncertainties on their tax liability in the source country. The OECD commentary specifically states that ... supra). He submitted that in that case, the Indian payer company obtained 'leased lines' on hire basis under a contract from non-resident Verizon Communication. When an Indian company takes leased line on hire, then it can be said that it had 'used' it as observed by Hon’ble Madras

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1718/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
Section 101ASection 143(3)Section 2(9)Section 3Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

instant case. 3. The ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee are challenging the disallowance of re-insurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers, who do not have a place of business / branch in India, u/s.37(1) of the Act. The alternative disallowance that was made ... find that assessee is in the business of general insurance. During the year, the assessee paid an amount of Rs.681,13,22,176/- to non-resident companies (foreign reinsurers) as reinsurance premium. The assessee had not withheld tax on these outward remittances except one payment of Rs.45

Naveen Virendrakumar Gupta, Thane vs. ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2476/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Section 15Section 6Section 9

proceedings: 2 Naveen Virendrakumar Gupta A) The A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs.3,14,25,500/- to the total income of the non-resident as arrears of salary when me appellant was not employed in India during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. Hence ... Rs.3,14,25,500/- as salary in arrears. B) The A.O. has erred in ignoring the provisions of section 9(l)(ii) wherein, the non-resident salary income is taxable in India only if the services are rendered in India. The A.O. has accepted the fact that the appellant

Dy CIT (It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pramerica Aspf II Cyprus, Haryana

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 292B

loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee [Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us]. The assessee before us is a non-resident company incorporated, and fiscally domiciled, in Cyprus. Accordingly, in terms of Section 144C(15)(b)(ii), the assessee is an eligible assessee but then there

M/S Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1589/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

have made the payment directly to Hongkong company, yet no TDS is required to be deducted since the payment was made to a non-resident for services rendered outside India, whose income is not chargeable to tax in India. 9.7 We heard the parties on this issue and perused ... contentions, viz., (a) it is a case of mere reimbursement of expenses given to Bangalore Turf Club and (b) the payments made to non-residents for services rendered outside India is not liable for deduction of tax at source ITA Nos.1589 & 1232/Bang/2018 M/s. Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysuru Page

M/S Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1232/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

have made the payment directly to Hongkong company, yet no TDS is required to be deducted since the payment was made to a non-resident for services rendered outside India, whose income is not chargeable to tax in India. 9.7 We heard the parties on this issue and perused ... contentions, viz., (a) it is a case of mere reimbursement of expenses given to Bangalore Turf Club and (b) the payments made to non-residents for services rendered outside India is not liable for deduction of tax at source ITA Nos.1589 & 1232/Bang/2018 M/s. Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysuru Page

Ansr Global Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 225/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
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

ITO (It) -4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Zubin Russi Jal Taraporevala, Mumbai

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

ITA 2056/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2056/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito (It)-4(1)(1), Zubin Russi Jal R. No. 1729, 17Th Floor, Taraporevala, बिधम/ C/O- R. R. Dalal & Co. Air India Building, Ca’S 514, Churchgate Vs. Nariman Point, Chambers, 5, New Marine Mumbai-400 021 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaapt6792J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Hero Rai, Ld. Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.02.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 14.01.2019 U/S 143(3) For The Ay 2014-15 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri Hero Rai, Ld. AR byFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

after notice u/s 148 issued on 29.03.2017. The AO has stated that for the relevant year under consideration, the assessee, an individual and non-resident along with his brother Shri Cyrus Russi Jal Tarporevala transferred tenancy rights in a property which was inherited from their mother with 50% share each

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.] 23 A.Y. 2014-15 18. A reading of the said section brings to the fore following

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

inserted could not be invoked to assert that Explanation 4 clarifies the legal position as it always stood. It is only when the non-resident is liable to pay income-tax in India on income deemed to arise in India and no deduction of tax at Source is made under ... various provisions which deal with tax deduction at source, without any reference to chargeability to tax under the Act of the non-resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Act by which deductions have to be made without any reference to the chargeability

Mr. Faiyaz Mohamedali Mithani, Mumbau vs. ITO WD. 17(1) (4)New WD. 17(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1784/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1784/मुं/2021(िन.व.2010-11) Mr. Faiyaz Mohammedali Mithani Vs I.T.O., Ward 17(1)(4) (New Ward Flat No.602, 6Th Floor, Shivam Co-Op. 17(1)(1) As Per Portal, Kautilya Bhavan, Hsg Soc. Ltd, Near Versova Metro Bandra (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Station, Seven Bungalows, J.P. Road Mumbai-400 051 Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 Pan : Aptm0643M Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

signature of the Appellant is required. 6. To obtain digital signature there are various documents and procedures is to be complied. Further as a non-resident and stay in Dubai it is more difficult time consuming to obtain digital signature which is compulsorily required to e-file Appeal

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

this application, the assessee contended that in the relevant assessment year, the assessee was residing in Jaipur only and, therefore, was a non-resident in the taxable territories ; that in that year, he had never come to Bombay, and it was also not correct that he was carrying

Hermes Maritime Services P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4208/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Hermes Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. 1001/1002, Great Eastern Summit-B, Plot No. 66, Sector-15, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614 Pan: Aabch4865Q ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-15(2) (1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajen Damani Respondent By : Sh. Milind S. Chavan Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajen DamaniFor Respondent: Sh. Milind S. Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40

time of feeding the data in the software, the amount was inadvertently entered under clause 20(a) of the form 3CD. 2 Payment to non-resident: Rs. 226,356 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on the subject, the learned ... making disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) on non-deduction of TDS u/s. 195 while making payment the payment of Rs. 7,54,518/- to non-resident in China for services rendered and utilised outside India. Total Tax effect Rs. 289,656 3. Brief facts of the case are that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai vs. Rihen Harshad Mehta, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4097/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle - 8(3) V. Shri Rihen Harsahad Mehta 1608/1609, Prasad Chambers 6Th Floor, Room No. 659 Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Affpm9223F (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Shri Ajay Chandra Assessee By : Shri Nitesh S. Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 69A

undisputed facts, as may be relevant for deciding the aforesaid issue in the appeal, are as stated hereinafter: a. The assessee has been a non-resident in India for the year under consideration (see 7th row in the Table on Page - 1 of the assessment order); b. The assessee

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7992/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Akshita BhandariFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

that it did not give no rise to any income. The fact that the petitioner chose not to declare issue of shares to its non-resident associated enterprises in Form 3CEB as in its understanding it fell outside the scope of Chapter X of the Act now stands vindicated ... extent it seeks to bring to tax the arm‟s length price of the share issued by the petitioner to its non-resident associated enterprises and also deemed interest which is sought to be brought to tax on the ground of non- receipt of the consideration equivalent