← 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

Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited (Formerly Known As Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2979/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-
Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

acknowledging that the payments were made to resident contractors, erred in upholding the applicability of section 40(a)(i), which squarely applies only to non-resident payments. 6. In view of the above grounds of appeal, the Appellant prays that the disallowance amounting to INR 2,66,72,729 under ... source under Clause 21(b)(i) of the Form instead of Clause 21(b)(ii) of the Form which pertains to payments to non-residents where disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is made. The ld AR during the course of hearing took the bench through the breakup

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 509/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

deciding the residential status of the assessee despite the fact that various documentary evidences were submitted to prove that the assessee is non-resident and thereby erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... were issued from time to time. The assessee made her reply stating she has no liability for filing income tax return being Non-Resident Indian and she has no income which accrue or arise in India. In the search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act, as carried

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

deciding the residential status of the assessee despite the fact that various documentary evidences were submitted to prove that the assessee is non-resident and thereby erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... were issued from time to time. The assessee made her reply stating she has no liability for filing income tax return being Non-Resident Indian and she has no income which accrue or arise in India. In the search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act, as carried

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

deciding the residential status of the assessee despite the fact that various documentary evidences were submitted to prove that the assessee is non-resident and thereby erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... were issued from time to time. The assessee made her reply stating she has no liability for filing income tax return being Non-Resident Indian and she has no income which accrue or arise in India. In the search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act, as carried

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

deciding the residential status of the assessee despite the fact that various documentary evidences were submitted to prove that the assessee is non-resident and thereby erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... were issued from time to time. The assessee made her reply stating she has no liability for filing income tax return being Non-Resident Indian and she has no income which accrue or arise in India. In the search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act, as carried

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

deciding the residential status of the assessee despite the fact that various documentary evidences were submitted to prove that the assessee is non-resident and thereby erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... were issued from time to time. The assessee made her reply stating she has no liability for filing income tax return being Non-Resident Indian and she has no income which accrue or arise in India. In the search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act, as carried

Abdul Rahman Asad, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl. Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2433/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Abdul Rahman Asad, Vs. Dcit, House No.47, Behind Jain Mandi, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(1), Mohalla Barihat, New Delhi. Bahraich – 271 801 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aofpa6981F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Vasant, Fca Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi - 42 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 03.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Is A Non-Resident & Filed The Original Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 27.07.2022 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.4,86,560/- (Income From House Property Rs.4,64,444/-, Income From Other Sources Rs.32,115/- & Loss From Long

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 199

short] dated 03.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is a Non-Resident and filed the original return of income for AY 2022-23 on 27.07.2022 declaring taxable income of Rs.4,86,560/- (income from house property Rs.4,64,444/-, income

DCIT, Int.Tax, Jaipur vs. Devidass Aswani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

order as under:- ‘’10. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was stated by the appellant that he is Non-Resident Indian for several years and has his source of income in Doha Qatar where he is employed since last many years and his only source of fund is from

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Devidass Aswani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

order as under:- ‘’10. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was stated by the appellant that he is Non-Resident Indian for several years and has his source of income in Doha Qatar where he is employed since last many years and his only source of fund is from

M/S. Ambattur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

allotted further 8,40,869 equity shares to the existing shareholders (7,73,393 shares to domestic shareholder and balance 67,476 shares to Non-Resident Shareholder) at a price of Rs.1,777/- per share, at a premium of Rs.1,767/- per share, with the objective of reducing borrowings that ... issue. Further, the Ld.AR submitted that the shares were issued in the same proportion to all the existing shareholders (i.e. resident as well as non-resident shareholders) of the company and the same was not offered to outsiders (i.e. other than existing shareholders). The Ld.AR submitted that the Resident shareholders

Sap India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

Section 115Section 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 234DSection 37Section 92C

allowable under Section 37 of the act. As per ground No. 5 the assessee is requesting that the dividend distribution tax paid to its non-resident shareholders at the rate of 20.56% charged in terms of Section 115- O of the act should have been charged at the rate

Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 9/301, Vijay Park Ghodbunder (International Taxation)- Road, Kasarvadavli, Thane, Vs 4(2)(1), Mumbai - 400601 Mumbai (Pan : Bscps9388A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Shri Rajesh Poojary & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Advocates Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Passed Under The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2024-25/1070521602(1), Dated 21.11.2024, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Reassessment Proceedigns: 1.1 The Income Tax Officer 1 (1), Thane ("The J.A.O.") Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 28Th March 2023 & Issuing Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 29Th March 2023 In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act Read With E-Assessment Of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. 2 Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh Ay 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Shri Rajesh Poojary and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

with the directions given by ld. DRP. In the said para 10.1, the undisputable fact recorded are that assessee is a NRI that is non-resident Indian during the year under consideration. He had not filed his return for the year under consideration. Ld. AO resorted to reopening action ... which were considered in the assessment proceedings. In the cause title of the impugned assessment order, the status of the assessee is mentioned as “non-resident”. Since there was escapement of income from assessment to the tune of Rs.64,18,104/- case of the assessee was reopened by applying

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4416/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, Circle-4(2), 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi Delhi-110001 Pan: Aaacb5215H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Ca Department By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

raised against addition under section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.5,99,79,491 received on account of issue of shares to non-residents and VCFs at an issue price higher than FMV The company had issued 62211 shares @ 3271.13 in October, 2017 and January, 2018 to various non ... this report the fair market value of each share was calculated at Rs.2307. The assessing officer held that the company issued shares to non-residents on the value more than the fair market value (Difference from FMV 3271.13 – 2307 = 964.13). The assessee company has not submitted any reason for issuing

Shri Prakash Malji Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2744/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Prakash Malji Bhanushali International Tax, B 1502 Tower 1 Ward-1(2)(1), Lbs Marg, Vikas Paradise, Mumbai Mulund West, Vs. Mumbai – 400080 (Pan: Anjpb5957H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Siddharth Srivastava, Ca Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 28Section 41(1)Section 68

stated here in after.” 3 Prakash Malji Bhanushali AY 2014-15 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non-resident, who filed his return of income on 07.03.2015 reporting his total income at Rs.5,47,159/-. Assessee has a proprietary concern in the name and style

Appu Ghar Entertainment P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

ITA 2114/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2113/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.2114/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 Appu Ghar Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Metro Walk, Admin. Office, Of Income Tax, Sector-10, Central Circle–2, Near Rithala Metro Station, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacca4438K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

Section 68Section 69

relevant facts giving rise to the appeal of AY 2017–18 are that the assessee had made payment of ₹ 61,20,000/- to a non-resident; namely, D E Shaw Composite Investments Appu (Mauritius) Ltd. as evident from the details in Form 15CA filed by the assessee. However, during ... corroboratory evidence before the Authorities below. He submitted that the assessee had neither explained the source of payment of ₹ 61,20,000/- to non-resident in AY 2017-18 nor explained the genuineness of loan of ₹ 4,10,00,000/- along with the credit worthiness of lender

Appu Ghar Entertainment Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

ITA 2113/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2113/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.2114/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 Appu Ghar Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Metro Walk, Admin. Office, Of Income Tax, Sector-10, Central Circle–2, Near Rithala Metro Station, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacca4438K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

Section 68Section 69

relevant facts giving rise to the appeal of AY 2017–18 are that the assessee had made payment of ₹ 61,20,000/- to a non-resident; namely, D E Shaw Composite Investments Appu (Mauritius) Ltd. as evident from the details in Form 15CA filed by the assessee. However, during ... corroboratory evidence before the Authorities below. He submitted that the assessee had neither explained the source of payment of ₹ 61,20,000/- to non-resident in AY 2017-18 nor explained the genuineness of loan of ₹ 4,10,00,000/- along with the credit worthiness of lender

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarthy, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and Non-Resident Indian, during the A.Y. 2016-17 filed his return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018 admitting a total income

Brijeshkumar Natvarlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1333/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

with. The order of AO reveals that in response to one notice, the assessee, vide his reply dated 27.10.2023, submitted that he was a Non-resident and was unaware of the notices being issued to him. He got information from his Tax Consultant about the issuance of notices

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

only on 19.01.2022, which resulted in a delay of more than seven years. In Form No. 35, the assessee stated that he was a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and had come to India recently, whereupon he found the assessment and ITA Nos.158 & 159/Ahd/2023 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year ... merits. It was contended that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to genuine and bona fide reasons, as the assessee was a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) residing abroad and was not aware of the assessment order or the demand raised by the Department. The Counsel submitted that immediately

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

only on 19.01.2022, which resulted in a delay of more than seven years. In Form No. 35, the assessee stated that he was a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and had come to India recently, whereupon he found the assessment and ITA Nos.158 & 159/Ahd/2023 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year ... merits. It was contended that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to genuine and bona fide reasons, as the assessee was a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) residing abroad and was not aware of the assessment order or the demand raised by the Department. The Counsel submitted that immediately