“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

M/S Enea Software Inc., India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Enea Software Inc. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Openwave Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax Inc.), 1St Floor, Vs 2(2)(2), Civic Centre, Mobility Quattro Iconic Plot No. 273, Minto Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase 2, New Delhi. Gurugram, Haryana-122015 Pan- Aabco7261M Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C

Telecom Operators across the Globe. It has no business connection or Permanent Establishment ("PE") in India. Being a tax-resident of USA and a non-resident for the purposes of Act in India it is entitled to the beneficial provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India

Miteshkumar Dayaljibhai Pabari, Bhatiya vs. Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner, Rajkot

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

ITA 420/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 420 /Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Miteshkumar Dayaljibhai Pabari Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, International C/O Dayaljibhai Pabari, Shreeji Catlery Vs. Taxation Rajkot, Stores, Main Bajar, Bhatiya, Devbhoomi Dwarka, Room No. 312, Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Dwarka-361315(Gujarat) Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bctpp7290M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 274Section 69

this Tribunal. 11. The Learned Counsel for the assessee argued before the Bench that payments were made earlier in other assessment years by the non-resident assessee, therefore, no addition should be made in the hands of the assessee. 12. On the contrary, the Learned DR for the revenue relied

Sumitlal, Surat vs. ITO, Surat

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

ITA 545/SRT/2025[201011]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sumitlal, Ito 101-B/2, Sanskrut Flats Umra, Aayakar Bhavan, Bharthana, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395007 Pan No. Acxpl 1238 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nitin Paharia, CA&

Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

substantiation, especially in light of his opportunity for proper substantiation, especially in light of his opportunity for proper substantiation, especially in light of his non-resident status and the contention of belated communication resident status and the contention of belated communication resident status and the contention of belated communication

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Limited, Kovilpatti

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 193/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Tax, Limited, Circle-1, New No.21, Old No.4, Tirunelveli. Mill Street, Kovilpatti, Tamil Nadu-628 501. [Pan: Aaacl2632C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Bhupendran, Advocate. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Krishna Murthy At, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40Section 801ASection 80ISection 92CSection 92F

deduction u/s 80IA, and (ii) Rs.2,89,80,000/– towards disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on commission paid to non-resident agents. 3. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted both additions by giving reasons as under: 1.In respect of deduction ... /Chny/2025 (AY-2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s.Loyal Textile Mills Limited. b. The deletion of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on commission paid to non-resident agents. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) reiterated the grounds taken by the Revenue, contending that the ld.CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli vs. M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Limited, Kovilpatti

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 192/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40Section 801ASection 80ISection 92CSection 92F

ACIT(It)-1.2.2 Mumbai, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Bcd Travel Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore

Accordingly, the cross-objections are rendered infructuous and are dismissed as such

ITA 4849/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

pertinent to first recall that section 9(1)(vi) of the Act deems as income arising in India any consideration received by a non-resident for “the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula

ACIT(It)-1(2)(2), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Bcd Travel Asia Pacific Pte Limited, Singapore

ITA 4704/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

pertinent to first recall that section 9(1)(vi) of the Act deems as income arising in India any consideration received by a non-resident for "the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula

ACIT(It)-1.2.2, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Bcd Travel Asia Pacific Pte Limited, Singapore

Accordingly, the cross-objections are rendered infructuous and are dismissed as such

ITA 4572/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

ACIT(It)-1.2.2, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Bcd Travel Services Bv, Netherland

Accordingly, the cross-objections are rendered infructuous and are dismissed as such

ITA 4571/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

ACIT(It)-1.2.2, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Bcd Travel Services Bv, Netherlands

Accordingly, the cross-objections are rendered infructuous and are dismissed as such

ITA 4570/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

ACIT(It)-1.2.2, Mumbai, Bkc vs. Bcd Travel Asia Pacific Pte Limited, Singapore

Accordingly, the cross-objections are rendered infructuous and are dismissed as such

ITA 4569/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1885/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

discussing about the concept of Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) observed that the present case CIPL works mainly or wholly on behalf of the non-resident assessee, and therefore, the assessee has an agency PE in India in the form of CIPL. 3.5 In view of the above facts ... existence or otherwise of a PE of the assessee in India. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and is a resident of Ireland. As stated, the assessee is the principal distributor and licensor for software and hardware products and also

Aka Ausfuhrkredit-Gesellschaft Mbh, Outside India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Int Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

prior approval from the competent authority. In response to the said notice assessee company furnished its reply as under: - "AKA Ausfuhrkredis-Gesellschaft mbH is non-resident in the Republic of India and the bank is not taxable there We provide our Indian customers with a German Tax Residence Certificate every

Snc Lavalin Inc., Delhi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1760/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

Supreme Court, after determining various clauses of EULA/ Distribution agreement held that payments made by the Appellant to non-resident vendors shall not be taxable as Royalty under the relevant DTAA, the relevant extract of decision is as under: "Given the definition of royalties contained in Article ... facts of these cases. 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

Indrajeet Suresh Magar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

ITA 755/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.755/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Indrajeet Suresh Magar, Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. 100, Saroj Niwas, Ruikar Vs. Colony, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aiapm7745G अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Farrukh Mohammad Munir Mulla Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. There Is Delay Of 172 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Condone The Delay Of 172 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Incorrect Assessment Year: The Sale Of The Property On 12.04.2018 Should Be Taxable In Ay 2019-20, But It Has Been Incorrectly Assessed In Ay 2018- 19 By The Assessing Officer. 2. Proportional Taxation: The Assessee'S Ownership Is Only 50% & Hence The Capital Gain Should Be Taxed Proportionately. The Assessing Officer Has Failed To Account For This.

For Appellant: Shri Farrukh MohammadFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 148A

Briefly stated the facts as culled put from the statement of facts filed along with Form 36 are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (“NRI”) and presently residing along with his family and parents in Australia. He visits India very rarely and since pandemic he has last visited

Joel Eliah Pusanur, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3517/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Joel Eliah Pusanur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of B-29B Ground Floor, Income Tax, Paryavaran Complex, Circle International Saidulajab South West Delhi, Taxation-1 (2)(2), Civic Paryavaran Complex, 110030, Centre, Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aajpe8821A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sidhesh Chaugule, Adv(Vc) Revenue By Sh. Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025 Order

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A) ’ for short] dated 31/03/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts in brief that, the Assessee is a non-resident has originally e- filed his return of Income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 31.08.2019 and subsequently

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Dehradun

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 168/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

source outside India; or Services utilized in a business or profession carried on by such person in India or a person who is a non-resident, where the fees are payable in respect of for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source in India; Provided that ... including the reimbursement of service tax expenses incurred by assessee in the gross receipts and treating the royalty received from another non-resident as income of assessee thereby estimating 25% of the Gross revenue towards the same. 4 . Aggrieved by the order o f Ld.AO assessee preferred appeal beforeLd.CIT

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 167/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 166/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 165/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)