“ non-resident ”

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.

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.

345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court

461

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT

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.

288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court

394

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.

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.

346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court

371

125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court

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.

270

39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court

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.

269

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

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.

239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court

243

376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court

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

241

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

credit without proving that such amount represented income of Appellant chargeable to tax in India, & in complete disregard of fact that Appellant is a non-resident with no permanent establishment in India. a. The AO failed to appreciate that Appellant being a foreign company, invested offshore funds in Non-Convertible ... circumstances of the case & in law. the AO erred in questioning source of funds of Appellants holding company. Ephesus Holdings Pte Ltd. (EHPL), a non-resident & legally distinct entity. a. The Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that Appellant has discharged the initial burden

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Pune vs. Sanghvi Beauty and Technologies Private Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well

ITA 2120/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: "1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law

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

During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed that the appellant has issued shares at a premium to various resident and non-resident applicants at a price of Rs.50,176/- per share and at a price of Rs.1,61,077/-. Since the shares are not issued at face value

Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore, Mahalkshmipuram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Intl, Taxation 1(2) Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

where in it is held that where an IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 12 of 16 assessee, being a non-resident individual, sold a property in India and reinvested sale proceeds in purchase of a new residential property in name of her spouse, since sale proceeds ... certificate from corporation of Mysore city within three years was due to the reasons beyond the control the assessee as the assessee being a Non-Resident & was employed in the United Arab Emirates- Dubai with Geap Traders LLC since 2005. The assessee is deriving salary there from & the said foreign

Oxbow Energy Solutions B.V., Thane vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4769/MUM/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ms. JasminFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

being bared by limitation. 8. The Assessing Officer as well as the DRP erred in making assessment under the status of 'non-resident but applying the provisions pertaining to a resident entity 9. The case was selected for scrutiny for wrong reasons and the assessment was completed to justify ... preparatory or auxiliary activity. The one of the type of cases to which the newly inserted paragraph would apply is where the non-resident enterprise or a closely related enterprise already has a PE in the source country, and the activities in question constitute complementary functions that are part

Mrs Shireen J. Dastur, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Taxation Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2204/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shireen J. Dastur Income Tax Officer, 330, Coral Avenue, (International Taxation), New Port Beach, Ward 2(1)(1), California Vs. Mumbai 92662 Usa (Pan : Ctlpd0257N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 234B

assessee is taxable under the head ‘Capital Gains’. 4. Facts in brief as culled out from records are that assessee is a non-resident individual, who filed her return of income on 07.08.2018 reporting total income at Rs.24,68,760/-. During the year, assessee received an amount of Rs.15 Crores

Cppgroup Services Limited, Leeds, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 980/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23]

Section 143(3)Section 234B

assessee to the tune of Rs.14,56,35,000/- (A.Y. 2018-19) and Rs.14,71,82,129/- (A.Y. 2020-21) to its non-resident group company were as fee for technical services as per Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. We find that

Gsma Ltd, Usa vs. ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.P Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

these cases. 181. 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 ... 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. (ii) The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign

Valji Harji Hirani, Bhuj vs. ITO.(Int.Txn), Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Valji Harji Hirani Vs. Ito, (Int. Txn) Meghpar, Nr. Dena Bank, Gandhidham (Gujarat) – 370201 Bhuj (Gujarat) - 370430 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agjph6338K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 05/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp-2), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 18.01.2024. (Ita 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Drp Panel Has Erroneously Applied Section 69 By Focusing On The Conditions Outlined In Section 69 Without Duly Considering The Applicant'S Submission Regarding The Source Of The Investment. It Is Emphasized That The Nre Fdrs In Question Are From Previous Years & Have Been Made From After Tax Income Earned Abroad, As Clearly Stated In The Submission. The Panel Has Failed To Acknowledge The Satisfactory Explanation Provided By The Assessee Regarding The Source Of Acquisition Of The Investment. Shri Leuva Patel Kelavani Mandal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 148Section 69

case is a departure from the principles of fairness and due process. 3. Brief facts of the case that the assessee is an individual non-resident for the assessment year 2018-19, and his case was opened by the income tax department due to a 'reason to believe' that ... record, and also perused the paper-book filed by the assessee and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appellant was a non-resident and citizen of United Kingdom. The appellant did not file his return of income for the year under consideration as his total income

Pravin Prakash Magar, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals- Ward 4, Panvel, Maharashtra

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

ITA 5118/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Pravin Prakash Magar Cit(Appeals) Ward 4, Panvel B 106 Pratiksha Chs Plot No. 55, Panvel, Maharashtra 410206 Vs. Sec 15, Koper Khairne, Kopar Khairne S.O., Mumbai 400709 Pan No. Bpapm1266A Appellant Respondent : Shri.Pravin Magar (Assessee In Person) Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appear) Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 Date Of : 03/11/2025 Pronouncement Order Per Om Prakash Kant, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 16.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] For Ay 2024-25 In Relation To Order U/S. 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short The ‘Act’] Passed By The Ao For Short Deduction Of Tax At Source On Payment Made For Purchase Of Property From Non-Resident Indian. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Respondent: Shri.Pravin Magar (

Section 195Section 197Section 200ASection 201Section 201(1)

short the ‘Act’] passed by the AO for short deduction of tax at source on payment made for purchase of property from non-resident Indian. The relevant grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 2 Pravin Prakash Magar “1. BECAUSE the “CIT(A)” has erred ... Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an Indian resident, purchased an immovable property situated in India from two non-resident Indians, namely, Smt. Swati Durgesh Saxena and Shri Prabhat Saxena, for a consideration of ₹66,00,000/- each. Under the statutory mandate of Section

Skechers Sarl, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2028/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

digital businesses. One such option is a new nexus rule based on “significant economic presence”. As per the Action Plan 1 Report, a non-resident enterprise would create a taxable presence in a country if it has significant economic presence in that country on the basis of factors that have ... Management thus pervades all organizations 15. The services rendered, the procurement of export orders, etc. cannot be treated as management services provided by the non-resident to the respondent-assessee. The non- resident was not acting as a manager or dealing with administration. It was not controlling the policies

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1)(I/C), Chennai vs. Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1592/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

ITA 1591/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income for all these four assessment years in the status of a Non-Resident. A search operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 20.01.2021, pursuant to which the Assessing Officer ... Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before us, challenging the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the assessee’s residential status as Non-Resident in India during the relevant assessment years. 6. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR), relying upon Section 6 of the Act, contended that since

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1)(I/C), Chennai vs. Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1563/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1)(I/C), Chennai vs. Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1562/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1)(I/C), Chennai vs. Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the