← 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

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6859/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

agent commission and warehousing charges to the parties in Holland. Since the payments were relating to services rendered outside India and service providers are non-residents, who do not have any permanent establishment in India. The various courts have held that before effecting TDS one of the aspects

Ruttonsha International Rectifier Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO -13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6035/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6035/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ruttonsha International बिधम/ Ito-13(3)(2) Room No.227, 2Nd Floor, Rectifier Ltd Vs. 139/141, B- Wing, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Solaris Building No.1, Saki Road, Mumbai-400020. Vihar Road, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2816E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Homiyar Madan Revenue By: Shri Abdul Hakeem सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Added Back Expenditure Failing To Appreciate That Each Item Was Below The Value Or Rs.5,000/- & Was In The Nature Of Repair & Replacement Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Homiyar MadanFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Effect Rs. 99.400 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the assessing officer wherein the assessing officer disallowed payments made to non-residents failing to appreciate that tax was deducted and paid on such expenditure. Tax Effect Rs. 1,02,011 4. The CIT(A) erred ... charges. The assessee claimed the expenses as under: - Head of Expenses Amount (Rs.) Expenditure of Capital Nature 124413 Expenditure of Advertisement 284975 Payment of non-resident 292464 Gratuity paid 913275 Leave encashment 138181 Total 1753308 Since the assessee failed to prove the claim, therefore, the expenses were declined and added

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Suntech Peripherals P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3502/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3502/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito – 1(3)(2) M/S Suntech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, R. No. 541 बिाम 2-B, Prem Kutir, 177 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Babubhai Chinoi Road / Vs. Mubmai-400 020 Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-6873-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 28/02/2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 30/03/2015. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Share Premium Received On The Ground That It Was A Capital Receipt When In Reality There Is Accretion To Assets Without A Corresponding Increase In Claimable Liability (Shares & Premium Reserve) & Therefore Determining The Nature Of Such Receipt Of Share Premium As Income On It Remaining

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

under: - "For all the above reasons, we find that in the present facts issue of shares at a premium by the Petitioner to its non-resident holding company does not give rise to any income from an admitted International Transaction. Thus, no occasion to apply Chapter

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

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

ITA 966/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 1999-2000
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 149(1)(c)

along with one Suryakant Chagganlal Suchak, had invested UK £ 15,00,000 in India Resurgent Bonds issued by the State Bank of India, for non-resident Indians, that the assessee had received UK £ 14,400 from a non- resident, that the assessee had a bank account in HSBC Republic Bank ... person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

above aspects have been held in favour of the Appellant. 4. Disallowance under section 40(a) of the Act in respect of payments to non-resident Associated Enterprises (`AEs') and Non-AEs. 4.1. The NeAC and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts in disallowing payments ... Thus, under Section 92B(1) an ‘international transaction’ means- (a) a transaction between two or more AEs, either or both of whom are non-resident (b) the transaction is in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property or provision of service or lending or borrowing

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 4, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1016/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

enterprise.” Thus, under Section 92B(1) an ‘international transaction’ means- (a) a transaction between two or more AEs, either or both of whom are non-resident (b) the transaction is in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property or provision of service or lending

M/S Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3350/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

licensee an interest in the rights mentioned in section 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act. What is ‘licensed’ by the foreign, non-resident supplier to the distributor and resold to the resident end-user, or directly supplied to the resident end-user, is the sale

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 625/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

enterprise.” Thus, under Section 92B(1) an ‘international transaction’ means- (a) a transaction between two or more AEs, either or both of whom are non-resident (b) the transaction is in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property or provision of service or lending

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 3168/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

profession". Sec. 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act lists of certain items of expenditure and categories payees as "Residents" "Non-Residents". In respect of the items of such expenditure there if there is an obligation to deduct tax at source under Chapter XVII-B and such ... Explanation (c ) when payment made is Fees for Technical or Professional Service and Sec. 195 Expln.-1 when payment is made to non-resident. The reason for introduction of provisions such as Sec. 194(2) of the Act has been explained in CBDT circular No. 550 dated 1.1.1990 as follows

M/S Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2681/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgul, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

facts relating to the above said issue are stated in brief. During the year under consideration, the assessee paid following charges to non-resident parties and claimed the same as deduction:- M/s. Planet PSG Pte Ltd. - Rs.15,68,411/- Nortel Network, Singapore Pte. Ltd. - Rs. 7,33,201/- Paid ... record. There is no dispute that these expenses have been incurred by the assessee in Singapore, meaning thereby, these payments have been made to non-residents. Hence the liability to deduct TDS u/s 195 of the Act should be examined in terms of DTAA entered between India and Singapore

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sarwana Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Engineering Analysis Centre for excellence (Civil Appeal 8733-8734 of 2018) has explained the law on deduction of TDS on payments made to non-residents on purchase of software licenses. Hence the above said notification has to be read along with the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Herbal Life International India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 2587/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

profession". Sec. 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act lists of certain items of expenditure and categories payees as "Residents" "Non-Residents". In respect of the items of such expenditure there if there is an obligation to deduct tax at source under Chapter XVII-B and such ... Explanation (c ) when payment made is Fees for Technical or Professional Service and Sec. 195 Expln.-1 when payment is made to non-resident. The reason for introduction of provisions such as Sec. 194(2) of the Act has been explained in CBDT circular No. 550 dated 1.1.1990 as follows

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2220/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

profession". Sec. 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act lists of certain items of expenditure and categories payees as "Residents" "Non-Residents". In respect of the items of such expenditure there if there is an obligation to deduct tax at source under Chapter XVII-B and such ... Explanation (c ) when payment made is Fees for Technical or Professional Service and Sec. 195 Expln.-1 when payment is made to non-resident. The reason for introduction of provisions such as Sec. 194(2) of the Act has been explained in CBDT circular No. 550 dated 1.1.1990 as follows

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2219/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

profession". Sec. 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act lists of certain items of expenditure and categories payees as "Residents" "Non-Residents". In respect of the items of such expenditure there if there is an obligation to deduct tax at source under Chapter XVII-B and such ... Explanation (c ) when payment made is Fees for Technical or Professional Service and Sec. 195 Expln.-1 when payment is made to non-resident. The reason for introduction of provisions such as Sec. 194(2) of the Act has been explained in CBDT circular No. 550 dated 1.1.1990 as follows

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxn., New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Luxora Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opp. Eastern Express Highway Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(E), Mumbai – 400081 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishore Dewani Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Kishore DewaniFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

address of shareholders of AHL who. were the ultimate beneficiaries (Annexure 12) iv. You will kindly observe that primarily investments were made by non-residents in AHL and the funds were further invested by AHL into API and finally API made investment in the share capital of LRPL

Cj Darcl Logistics Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6123/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Cj Darcl Logistics Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.55P, Sec-44, Gurgaon, Cpc-Tds, Haryana-122003. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaacd2086J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.02.2022

Section 206A

deduction of tax @ 20 percent in accordance with provisions of section 206AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on payment made to non-resident (i.e. Anbis Development) without appreciating that the recipient of the such sum is entitled to be governed by the beneficial provisions of double taxation

DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3413/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri C.N. Prasadasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)(b)Section 9

dated 28.2.2018 pertaining to the assessment year (“AY”) 2013-14. 2. The main issue involved in the appeal is whether consideration received by a non-resident from supply of standardised software to an Indian end customer amounts to royalty or business income in the hands of the non-resident recipient ... There can be no doubt as to the real nature of the transactions in the appeals before us. What is "licensed" by the foreign, non-resident supplier to the distributor and resold to the resident end-user, or directly supplied to the resident end-user, is in fact the sale

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dhv B.V, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2834/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 44D

liable to tax on net basis as per provisions of section 44DA of the Act.” 3. Briefly stated facts are, the assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in Netherlands and a tax resident of that country. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing consultancy services related