← 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

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

share capital contribution is in compliance with directives of Reserve Bank of India. Receipt of share capital contribution from non-resident share holder has been accepted on receipt of foreign remittance without inviting any adverse observation by Financial Institutions. On above factual position no addition in respect to share capital ... applicable only in respect to share holder being resident of India. Share capital contribution received by assessee company is from non-resident share holder and proviso to section 68 of IT. Act 1961 is inapplicable. I) In respect to share capital contribution from non-resident share holders no addition

M/S Playsimple Games Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1125/BANG/2019[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234BSection 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

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.3 (ii) The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign ... non-resident suppliers or manufacturers and then reselling the same to resident Indian end-users.4 (iii) The third category concerns cases wherein the distributor happens to be a foreign, non-resident vendor, who, after purchasing software from a foreign, non- resident seller, resells the same to resident Indian distributors

Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1220/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

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 ... No.1220/Mum./2021 quoted Article 7(2) of the DTAA. According to the AAR where there is an international transaction under which a non-resident compensates a PE at arm's length price, no further profits would be attributable in India. In this connection, the AAR has relied upon Circular

M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

income under section 115JB Issue 1 — Disallowance of payment to Individual Freelancers 2. During the subject AY the Company had availed services from certain non-resident freelancers and made payment of Rs 20,56,737 for the services rendered by them and has not deducted Tax Deducted at Source ... regarding the disallowance of payment made to individual freelancers. The Ld.AR submitted that, during the year under consideration assessee received services from certain non-resident free lancers to whom payment of ₹ 20,56,737/- was made towards the services rendered by them. Assessee had not deducted any TDS on such

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

income under section 115JB Issue 1 — Disallowance of payment to Individual Freelancers 2. During the subject AY the Company had availed services from certain non-resident freelancers and made payment of Rs 20,56,737 for the services rendered by them and has not deducted Tax Deducted at Source ... regarding the disallowance of payment made to individual freelancers. The Ld.AR submitted that, during the year under consideration assessee received services from certain non-resident free lancers to whom payment of ₹ 20,56,737/- was made towards the services rendered by them. Assessee had not deducted any TDS on such

ITO (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6755/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ao Without Any Reasonable Cause & Despite Being Given Sufficient Opportunities?" (B) "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Accepting Additional Evidence Is Not Correct As Per Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204Taxmann 106(Delhi) 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Addition U/S. 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Cannot Be Made In This Case, Because The Ao Has Not Made Addition U/S. 68, But Has Made The Addition As An Unexplained Investment Which Is Subject Matter Of Section 69 Of The I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Source Of Investment Amounting To Rs. 25.37 Crs. In M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd. By The Assessee Lies In Dubai On 2 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 68Section 69

However, learned CIT(A) noted that there was genuine reason for not submitting the evidence before the Assessing Officer. That the assessee is a non-resident. That many notices were not served to the assessee. Accordingly he admitted additional evidence. Thereafter learned CIT(A) noted the remand report and found

Income Tax Officer -4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Laliet Kumar (Jm)

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Apex Court in the case of G. E. Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that where an amount is payable to a non-resident, the payer's obligations to deduct tax at source arises only when such remittances is a sum chargeable under the Act, i.e., chargeable ... payment, which is made by the telecast operators who are situated abroad to the appellant, which is also a non-resident, i.e., sought to be brought within the tax net. It is concluded that it is difficult to accept such far-fetched reasoning with no causal connection

Atos Information Technology Hk Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7205/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

included "by means of, "in consequence of or "by reason of. Thus, as per the provisions of section 9(l)(i), if a non-resident person has a source of income in India then such income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India, and thereby taxable in India

Asstt. CIT -3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 908/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 908 & 909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit Circle-3(1)(1) M/S. Rideema Toll Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, 6Th Floor, M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ltd. 501-B, 5Th Floor, Silver Utopia Road, Mumbai-400020. Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca0266H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13. Ita. No.909/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.02.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Made On

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 195Section 40

instruments, cost of unspent spares etc. cannot be construed as FTS since no managerial, technical or consultancy services have been provided by the aforesaid non-resident entities to the appellant in the assessment year under consideration. It is not the case of the AO that the afore-mentioned non-resident ... materials on record, there is no finding of any element of profit embedded in the said reimbursements made by the appellant to the non-resident entities under reference. Further, the payments made by the appellant are received by the aforementioned nonresident entities in their respective place of business outside India

ITO (Intl. Tax)- Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Philip Andrew Lobo, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 436/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh SabooFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan
Section 147Section 68

what was concluded by Assessing Officer in the remand report at page no. 8 , during the second round can not be relied upon as non-resident status was not enquired by the CIT(A) in appellate proceedings as per the requirmenrt of section ... section 68 is only applicable in the case of a resident. Once the amount is transferred and received from the account of a non-resident to the non-resident in India, then the same cannot be a subject matter of addition u/s.68. He also drew our attention to the various

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 1138/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

case of Neo-Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITA number 187 of 2018) wherein it has been held that the transponder charges paid to a non-resident is not taxable as ‗royalty‘ following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Communications ... 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 1137/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

case of Neo-Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITA number 187 of 2018) wherein it has been held that the transponder charges paid to a non-resident is not taxable as ‗royalty‘ following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Communications ... 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 1136/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

case of Neo-Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITA number 187 of 2018) wherein it has been held that the transponder charges paid to a non-resident is not taxable as ‗royalty‘ following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Communications ... 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 1135/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

case of Neo-Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITA number 187 of 2018) wherein it has been held that the transponder charges paid to a non-resident is not taxable as ‗royalty‘ following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Communications ... 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 1134/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

case of Neo-Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITA number 187 of 2018) wherein it has been held that the transponder charges paid to a non-resident is not taxable as ‗royalty‘ following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Communications ... 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 1133/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

case of Neo-Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITA number 187 of 2018) wherein it has been held that the transponder charges paid to a non-resident is not taxable as ‗royalty‘ following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Communications ... 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 1132/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

case of Neo-Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITA number 187 of 2018) wherein it has been held that the transponder charges paid to a non-resident is not taxable as ‗royalty‘ following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Communications ... 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 1131/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

case of Neo-Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITA number 187 of 2018) wherein it has been held that the transponder charges paid to a non-resident is not taxable as ‗royalty‘ following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Communications ... 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 1130/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

case of Neo-Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITA number 187 of 2018) wherein it has been held that the transponder charges paid to a non-resident is not taxable as ‗royalty‘ following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Communications ... 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 1129/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

case of Neo-Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITA number 187 of 2018) wherein it has been held that the transponder charges paid to a non-resident is not taxable as ‗royalty‘ following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite Communications ... 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