← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2972/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

prescribed by r. 5, while giving instances of the items contemplated under r. 4, refers to agricultural income and foreign income of a non-resident which fall in Chap. III. (e) The history of the legislation showed that some of the items now included in Chap. VI-A were previously ... assessee is computed by including all incomes, profits and gains arising in India or outside. Similarly income of resident but not ordinary resident or non-resident, are computed in accordance with Section 5 Chapter II, which forms the basis of Charge. Secondly, Chapter III with the heading "incomes not included

M/S. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2342/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

prescribed by r. 5, while giving instances of the items contemplated under r. 4, refers to agricultural income and foreign income of a non-resident which fall in Chap. III. (e) The history of the legislation showed that some of the items now included in Chap. VI-A were previously ... assessee is computed by including all incomes, profits and gains arising in India or outside. Similarly income of resident but not ordinary resident or non-resident, are computed in accordance with Section 5 Chapter II, which forms the basis of Charge. Secondly, Chapter III with the heading "incomes not included

M/S. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2341/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

prescribed by r. 5, while giving instances of the items contemplated under r. 4, refers to agricultural income and foreign income of a non-resident which fall in Chap. III. (e) The history of the legislation showed that some of the items now included in Chap. VI-A were previously ... assessee is computed by including all incomes, profits and gains arising in India or outside. Similarly income of resident but not ordinary resident or non-resident, are computed in accordance with Section 5 Chapter II, which forms the basis of Charge. Secondly, Chapter III with the heading "incomes not included

M/S.Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 364/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Synamedia Ltd. [Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited’], The Assistant C/O. M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, International Survey No. 51-64/4, Taxation, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 1(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aabcn2524L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021

For Appellant: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

case are as under: The facts and circumstances that give rise to the aforesaid grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a non-resident foreign company incorporated in United Kingdom. It is in the business of supply of open digital technology and services to digital pay television ... supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically dealt with cases wherein computer software is affixed on to hardware as an integrated unit/equipment by foreign non-resident supplier to Indian distributors or end users. This is the fourth category of cases which was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Thai Glico Co. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7261/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 274

relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under : 3. Assessee is a non-resident Indian company stated to have been incorporated as per law of Thailand and is stated to be engaged in manufacturing and marketing of Confectionary ... regarded as ‘transactions between two enterprises’ for the purpose of Section 92 of the Act. It was further submitted that the transactions between the non-resident and the assessee would attract transfer pricing provisions and according to the understanding of the assessee, it was of the view that transfer pricing

ACIT, Circle- 28(1), New Delhi vs. Chadha Power, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3055/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition made u/s 40(a)(i) for reimbursement of expenses to a non-resident placed at Dubai and South Africa; and the addition of Rs.1,07,70,378/- on account of diversion of income. 3 ITA No.3055/Del./2018 4. Facts ... further 4 ITA No.3055/Del./2018 disallowed that said expenditure has to be examined from another dimension i.e. the amount is paid to a non-resident and, therefore, provisions of section 40(a)(i) is applicable because TDS is not deducted and paid. The observation of AO in this regard

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3158/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In all the three years, one common issue relating to disallowance of commission payments made to non-resident agents u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. In AY 2012-13, the assessee is also contesting ... books of the statutory agent can be treated as incomes accrued, arisen, or deemed to have accrued or arisen in India to the non-resident assessees during the relevant year. This takes us to section 9 of the Act. It is urged that the commission amounts should be treated

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3157/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In all the three years, one common issue relating to disallowance of commission payments made to non-resident agents u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. In AY 2012-13, the assessee is also contesting ... books of the statutory agent can be treated as incomes accrued, arisen, or deemed to have accrued or arisen in India to the non-resident assessees during the relevant year. This takes us to section 9 of the Act. It is urged that the commission amounts should be treated

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3156/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In all the three years, one common issue relating to disallowance of commission payments made to non-resident agents u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. In AY 2012-13, the assessee is also contesting ... books of the statutory agent can be treated as incomes accrued, arisen, or deemed to have accrued or arisen in India to the non-resident assessees during the relevant year. This takes us to section 9 of the Act. It is urged that the commission amounts should be treated

M/S Moonfrog Labs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3066/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Moonfrog Labs Pvt. Ltd., 16/3, Level-3, The Assistant Adarsh Yellavarthy Centre, Commissioner Of Cambridge Road, Income Tax, Ulsoor Jogupalya, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore – 560008. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaicm9563H Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh .K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore (`A0') Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeals)-4 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

concluding that the deductor cannot be permitted to take shelter under the DTAA as the benefit of DTAA is conferred only on the non-resident recipient. 2.7. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that DTAA is also to be considered for the purposes of deduction ... liable to be quashed. 2.9. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, payments made to non-residents amounting to Rs. 1,16,00,535 was not liable for TDS under section 195 and consequently disallowance confirmed under section 40(a)(1) should be deleted. The Appellant prays

Mountain Trail Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-4, Bengaluru

In the result, all the miscellaneous applications are allowed and all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)
Section 248

denying its liability to deduct tax at source. The assessee had initially paid the TDS amount applicable to the payments made to the Non-residents and has filed these appeals denying its liability to deduct TDS from those payments. The issues contested in all these appeals broadly involve the question ... 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

Intelsat Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4946/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 271Section 9

customers into three categories without giving a reasonable basis and accordingly, taxing 90 percent, 50 percent and 5 percent of the revenue from such non-resident customers. 7. That without prejudice to the above, the Assessing Officer on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, while computing

Astro Offshore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, Int. Tax. Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 192/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Judcial Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(4)Section 144C(4)(b)Section 147Section 148

order is barred by limitation prescribed under the statutory provisions. 3. Briefly the facts necessary for deciding the issue are, the assessee is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws 2 of Singapore. For the impugned assessment year, the assessment in the case of the assessee was reopened under

Chander Mohan Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 40A(2)

entered into DTAA, no Tax Residency Certificates (in short TRC) have been furnished. Therefore, in the aforesaid premises payment made to twenty four non-residents aggregating to Rs.65,94,144/- was disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. Though, the assessee

Faber Castell Aktiengesellschaft, Germany vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7619/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

arose and according to the law of that State. Although under section 5(2)(b) of the Act, applicable in the case of a non-resident person, income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in India is taxable, the specific provision of Article VIIIA provides ... otherwise would be to take the income outside the purview of taxation under the Act, though such income had accrued in India to a non-resident. 6.4 After considering the facts of the case and precedents relied upon by the rival parties, we find that the Id. senior

Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5121/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1000/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Addl. Cit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E Ita No. 1116/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 1117/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6704/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7419/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Dcit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2)(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon-122011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited( LL 2021 SC 124) settled the long-running contentious issue over how payments made by Indian customers to non-resident suppliers for the use or resale of computer software should be characterised, providing much-needed tax certainty on the issue ... facts of 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- 2, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6172/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Narendra Singh J., CIT DR
Section 44BSection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

support its contention. 8. Combined effect of the provisions of sections 44BB, 44DA and 115A is that if the income of a non-resident is in the nature of fee for technical services, it shall be taxable under the provisions of either section 44DA or section 115A irrespective ... chargeable to tax is to be calculated at a sum equal to 10% of the aggregate of the amounts paid or payable to such non-resident assessee as mentioned in Sub-section (2). On the other hand, Section 44D contemplates that if the income of a foreign company with which

M/S Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy vs. DCIT, International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1117/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1000/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Addl. Cit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E Ita No. 1116/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 1117/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6704/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7419/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Dcit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2)(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon-122011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited( LL 2021 SC 124) settled the long-running contentious issue over how payments made by Indian customers to non-resident suppliers for the use or resale of computer software should be characterised, providing much-needed tax certainty on the issue ... facts of 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

M/S Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy vs. DCIT, International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1116/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1000/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Addl. Cit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E Ita No. 1116/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 1117/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6704/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7419/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Dcit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2)(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon-122011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited( LL 2021 SC 124) settled the long-running contentious issue over how payments made by Indian customers to non-resident suppliers for the use or resale of computer software should be characterised, providing much-needed tax certainty on the issue ... facts of 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

M/S. Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1000/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1000/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Addl. Cit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E Ita No. 1116/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 1117/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6704/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7419/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Dcit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2)(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon-122011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited( LL 2021 SC 124) settled the long-running contentious issue over how payments made by Indian customers to non-resident suppliers for the use or resale of computer software should be characterised, providing much-needed tax certainty on the issue ... facts of 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