← 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

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 1450/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

under section 234B and section 234D of the Act.” 4. The revenue has taken the following grounds: “1. Disallowance of reinsurance premium paid/payable to non-resident reinsurance. 2. Disallowance of the provision towards claims incurred but nor reported (IBNR) and claims incurred but not enough reported (IBNER). TATA AIG General ... revenue contended that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source on reinsurance premium paid to non-resident insurers towards cession of risk. It was alleged that such payment was in contravention of section 101A(7) read with section 2(9) of the Insurance Act. On this basis

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (Tagic), Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department

ITA 1432/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

No.2403/Mum/2024 (Revenue's appeal, AY 2018-19) 4. The revenue has taken the following grounds: “1. Disallowance of reinsurance premium paid/payable to non-resident reinsurance. 2. Disallowance of the provision towards claims incurred but nor reported (IBNR) and claims incurred but not enough reported (IBNER). 3. Disallowance of exemption under

Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

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 ... such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Explanation For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance

ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, Medak

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

ITA 1821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1821/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, (International Taxation)-1, Medak. Hyderabad. Pan: Aztpd7575K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Hyd/2026 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1821/Hyd/2025) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, (International Taxation)-1, Medak. Hyderabad. Pan: Aztpd7575K (Appellant In Appeal) (Respondent/Cross Objector) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sudarshan, Ca Shri Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sv Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, Dated 19.08.2025, Co No.01/Hyd/2026 Ito (It)-1, Hyd Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni

For Appellant: Shri Sudarshan, CAFor Respondent: Shri SV Siva Prasad, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

add/alter/amend any ground at the time.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO, based on information received through Statement of Financial Transactions that the assessee, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), had during the period relevant to AY 2017-18, made substantial cash deposits of Rs. 96.30 lacs (including cash deposits ... record, the CIT(Appeals), after considering the assessment order, written submissions, remand report, and rejoinder, recorded a categorical finding that the assessee was a non-resident with substantial professional income in USA, which had been offered to tax abroad. The CIT(Appeals) noticed that the inward remittances

Pedaveeti Swathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1785/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1785/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Pedaveeti Swathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-9(1), Pan: Fugps2126J Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/02/2024 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

applying his mind, and considering the fact that the assessee having left India during the year 2007 was holding the residential status of a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). In our view, when the 9 Pedaveeti Swathi vs. ITO assessee/appellant had based on specific grounds of appeal assailed the assessment order ... thoughtful consideration and taking cognizance of the aforesaid facts read in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee is stated to be a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), and claims that the subject cash deposits in her bank account were sourced out of her agricultural income, the matter

Sridharan Shanmugam, Salem vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C.Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144(7)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 69Section 69A

various grounds in his appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that the assessee is an individual non-resident living in UAE and has been staying since last two decades. The assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2022-23 (Financial year ... confirmed by the DRP, is sustainable in law and on facts. The following facts are not in dispute that the assessee is a non-resident individual residing in UAE for over two decades. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 declaring income of Rs.6

Amit Satpathy, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5930/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailamit Satpathy, Flat No.404, Tower A, Imperial Heights, Oshirwara, Goregaon (West) ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400104 Pan: Arrps8419D V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Assistant Director Of Income Tax, …………….Respondent Central Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru - 560500

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 90(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Bobst Bielefeld Gmbh, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6030/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

such relief is payable tax rate among the two countries on the doubly taxed income. Here is a situation where the assessee is a non-resident company and having Indian sourced income and thus, the question of relief u/s 91 doesn‟t arise at first place. Therefore, where the assessee

Bobst Bielefeld Gmbh, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6029/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

such relief is payable tax rate among the two countries on the doubly taxed income. Here is a situation where the assessee is a non-resident company and having Indian sourced income and thus, the question of relief u/s 91 doesn‟t arise at first place. Therefore, where the assessee

DCIT(It)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Madhavachari Rangachari, Mumbai

ITA 3814/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 254Section 9(1)(vii)

companies, wherein, inter-alia, it was found that the assessee, who claims to be resident of UAE, has rendered consultancy services to two non-resident entities, i.e. Gulf Finance House (“GFH”) and Khaleej Bank of Commerce (“KBHC”), and GFH has, over the years, for certain of its projects in India ... submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, the assessee is an individual and is a non-resident Indian. As per the assessee, he is settled in the UAE. In the present case, it is undisputed that the assessee rendered consultancy services

Vidyasagar Institute of Technical Studies, Bhubaneswa vs. Exemption Ward, Bbn, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 135/CTK/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.135/Ctk/2026 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Vs Exemption Ward, Bbn/Nfac, Delhi Vidyasagar Institute Of Technical Studies, Plot No.Hig-13, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751030 Pan No. :Aabtv 0349 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jagmohan Pattnaik & Shri Biswaraj Roul, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dated 20.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Submitted That The Solitary Issue Involved In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Regarding The Validity Of Issue Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act. Ld. Ar Further Submitted That The Notice Issued By The Ld. Ao U/S.148 Of The Act Is Barred By Limitation And, Therefore, Invalid In Law. Inviting Attention To The Copy Of The Notice Issued U/S.148 Of The Act Placed At Page No.64 & 65 Of The Paper Book, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Relevant Assessment Year Involved Is A.Y.2013-2014. It Was Submitted That The Impugned Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Has Been Issued On 30.06.2022, Which Is Beyond Six Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment. The Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Jagmohan Pattnaik & Shri BiswarajFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149

person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such ... non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

there was none. In the instant case, the AO had completely overlooked the legal provisions dealing with taxation of income in the hands of non-resident assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the relevant DTAAs. Any order that was passed without gathering relevant facts, including necessary ... manpower or related affairs but could not cover the services of foreign agents of procuring export orders. Thus, the process of procuring orders by non-residents could not be termed as managerial services which could fall under fee for technical services as defined by Explanation-2 below section

Sudha Doshi, Hyderabad vs. ITO - Ward 5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1775/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. VenkateshwarluFor Respondent: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1225/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

Shri Syed Gulam Mohiuddin Vs. ITO in ITA No.136/Hyd/2023 dated 03.06.2024. We find that the coordinate Bench had considered an identical issue of non-resident in terms of section 148 of the Act and after considering the relevant facts including the status of the assessee as non- resident and also ... available only in case, where reference u/s 92CA is made to Transfer Pricing Officer, but not in a case of an assessment of non-resident u/s 148 r.w.s. 144C of the Act. Relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: Page

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1224/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

Shri Syed Gulam Mohiuddin Vs. ITO in ITA No.136/Hyd/2023 dated 03.06.2024. We find that the coordinate Bench had considered an identical issue of non-resident in terms of section 148 of the Act and after considering the relevant facts including the status of the assessee as non- resident and also ... available only in case, where reference u/s 92CA is made to Transfer Pricing Officer, but not in a case of an assessment of non-resident u/s 148 r.w.s. 144C of the Act. Relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: Page

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1223/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA
Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 153BSection 153CSection 69

Shri Syed Gulam Mohiuddin Vs. ITO in ITA No.136/Hyd/2023 dated 03.06.2024. We find that the coordinate Bench had considered an identical issue of non-resident in terms of section 148 of the Act and after considering the relevant facts including the status of the assessee as non- resident and also ... available only in case, where reference u/s 92CA is made to Transfer Pricing Officer, but not in a case of an assessment of non-resident u/s 148 r.w.s. 144C of the Act. Relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: "8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1222/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

Shri Syed Gulam Mohiuddin Vs. ITO in ITA No.136/Hyd/2023 dated 03.06.2024. We find that the coordinate Bench had considered an identical issue of non-resident in terms of section 148 of the Act and after considering the relevant facts including the status of the assessee as non- resident and also ... available only in case, where reference u/s 92CA is made to Transfer Pricing Officer, but not in a case of an assessment of non-resident u/s 148 r.w.s. 144C of the Act. Relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: Page

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

taxmann 325 [2012] which was squarely applicable to the assessee-company, which stated that, since the income from commission payment to non-resident have arose in India and is taxable under the Act in view of the specific provision of section 5(2)(b) r.w.s ... thus, the AO has correctly made addition of Rs.25,55,75,035/- on account of disallowance of commission paid to non-resident under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act." 3. At the outset itself, the Ld. AR, appearing for the assessee, submitted that all the issues raised

Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 1031/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Nimashri K.A., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

194C (b) Professional fees covered by sec. 194J (c) Rent expenses covered by sec. 194I (d) Commission expenses covered by sec.194H (e) Payments to non-residents covered by sec. 195 The Ld CIT(A) rejected this submission of the assessee with the following observations:- "4.2 With regard to the appellant

Rita Anil Kapoor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6640/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarrita Anil Kapoor National Faceless Assessment Rowhouse No. 6, Grand Paradi, Centre, Delhi August Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, Vs. [Present Jurisdiction Income-Tax Mumbai-400 036 Officer Ward 19(2)(4)-Mumbai] Pan/Gir No. Atvpk 7073 K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M. P. Lohia Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Assessee, Arises Out Of Order Dated 19.08.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Solitary Issue On Merit Is Concerning The Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.6,60,37,500/- U/S. 69 Of The Act, Representing Alleged Unexplained Investment In Purchase Of Immovable Property.

For Appellant: Shri M. P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 147Section 69

assessee’s name was merely added as a joint owner while executing the sale agreement considering the fact that assessee’s husband was a non-resident India (NRI). The assessee further intimated the A.O. that her husband had died prior to initiation of assessment proceedings and copy of death certificate