“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

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

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

ITA 164/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalι.Τ.Α. No. 168/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 163/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 164/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 165/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2019-20) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 166/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 167/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2021-22) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Weatherford Oil Tools M.E Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Limited. 6Th Floor, Vaman Centre, Makwana Road, J. B. Nagar, Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan: Aaacw1524G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Sh. Amit Arora, Adv, Sh. Shivamyadav, Adv & Ms. Somya Singh, Adv Revenue By Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Cit(A)-Noida, 2 ('Ld. Cit(A)' For Short), Delhi Dated 31/07/2024 For The Assessment Years2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. 2. All The Above Appeals Are Having Identical Issues To Be Decided, Therefore, The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard Together & Decided In This Common Order. 2

Section 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 163/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

Sapphire Reclaim Rubber Private Limited, Shapar, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is rejected

ITA 272/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 272/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Sapphire Reclaim Rubber Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Bhoomi Industrial Area, Plot No: Income Tax-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhawan, Race 1/44, National Highway 27, Veraval (Shapar), Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360311 Rajkot Gujarat - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs6205B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

Cash credit (Gift) - Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - assessez received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India -Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors Commissioner, however, passed

Shri Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 37/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 131

Dubai. It was noted that assessee and his wife Indira Thakkar were the trustees of SCSFT and that Shri Suryakant C Suchak was a non-resident and had no assessable income in India. It was also submitted that SCSFT was not an Indian trust. 2.4 The Ld.AO analysed the submission ... Indian Tax and other laws for last 40 years. They both hold British Passports. 4. My two sisters, Mrs. Indira Dilip Thakkar was a Non-Resident as per Indian Tax laws till her marriage to Dilip J. Thakkar, who is Indian Tax Resident, in 1962. My other sister, Mrs. Pramodini

Fullerton Financial Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(1) - Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1137/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act by the AO is erroneous” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a non-resident [Fullerton Financial Holdings Pte. Ltd. ("FFH")] private limited company incorporated under the Singapore Companies Act and domiciled in Singapore since 23.01.2003. Return of income

Mahesh Ratilal Ganatra, United Kinddom vs. The DCIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2125/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, SR.DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 272A(1)(d)

dated 22.11.2023 before the CIT(A) citing reasons for not responding to the notice u/s.142(1) of the 2 Act. The assessee is a Non-Resident and is residing in United Kingdom. Since, the assessee has no source of income in India therefore no return of income was filed ... examined the orders of authorities below. It is an un-denying fact that the assessee is a resident of United Kingdom and is a Non-Resident Indian. The assessment has been framed in name of the assesee in the status of Non-Resident. The address mentioned in the order

Solvay S A, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2071/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

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

Agreement (‘DTAA' for short) as also u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee, a non-resident corporate entity, is a tax resident of Belgium. As stated by the Assessing Officer (‘A.O.' for short), the assessee is a chemical manufacturing company ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has quoted excerpts of the agreement between the respondent-assessee, who has been described as „PAL", and the non-resident, who has been described as „AGENTA". The relevant portions thereof read as under:- "2. Appointment (1) PAL hereby appoint AGENTA as its commission agent

Addl CIT Sp RG 22, Mumbai vs. Dsp Merrill Lynch Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2198/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 1994-95

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 140ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250Section 80Section 800

time being in force for regulating payments and dealings in foreign exchange; (ii) "foreign enterprise" means a person who is a non-resident. (iii) services rendered or agreed to be rendered outside India shall include services rendered from India but shall not include services rendered in India. 11. The contention

Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl C.I.T. Range 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1581/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 1994-95

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 140ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250Section 80Section 800

Savegenie E-Marketing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgoan

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

ITA 3847/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

counsel for the assessee further contended that the second proviso in section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to non-resident assessee, being a foreign company, which has paid share application money including share premium and to whom share capital was allotted during the previous year ... statute in section 56(2)(viib), in the impugned assessment year 2015-16, provided that any consideration received by the assessee company from non-resident for issue of shares, cannot be taxed as income Page 8 of 14 ITA No. 3847/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2015-16] Savegenic E-Marketing Vs.ITO from other

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

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

ITA 499/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

assessee HARESHKUMAR DUNGARMAL JAIN Address of the assessee 39 SHIVAJI PARK, E WARD NEAR CBS KOLHAPUR 416003, Maharashtra India Resident Not Ordinarily Resident Non-Resident 9 Date of order 13/04/2022 Specified authority approval Name PCIT, Pune-1 Reference No. 100000029101926 Date Order under clause (d) of section 148A

Partheeban Vignesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Taxation Ward, Chennai

ITA 2265/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2265/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Partheebanvignesh The Income Tax Officer, Old No.6, New No.4, Vs. Intl. Taxation Ward-2(2), Balaji Nagar, 1St Cross Street, Chennai. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 097. [Pan:Ankpv3468N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Smt.Lekah, C.A प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Soloman, Jcit

For Appellant: Smt.Lekah, C.AFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Soloman, JCIT

circumstances of the instant case. 3.0 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee is a non-resident individual. Since he had no taxable income in India, he did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2019-20. The Assessee

Virtue Drilling Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle Intl. Tax-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1399/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Virtue Drilling Pte Ltd. Vs Dcit 146, 11-01, Robinson Road, Circle International Taxation Singapore-068909 3(1)(1), Delhi Pan: Aadcv1193R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Adv& Sh. Ayushgarg, Ca Revenue By Sh. Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)

non PSC partner was a business receipts earned in connection to mineral exploration whereas in the instant case, the receipts in hands of the non-resident is clearly not a business receipts and accordingly such receipt is clearly not a business receipt and accordingly such receipt are not liable

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4993/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

books of accounts are not there. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced herewith : - "7. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent/assessee is non-resident Indian and his source of income in India being from interest on bank accounts and interest on income tax refund, he is not obliged

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC 03, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4643/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, . Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

impugned assessment year defines an un-controlled transaction to mean a transaction other than that between two associate enterprises; whether resident or non-resident. We keep in mind the same and proceed further to Rule 10B prescribing arms length price for the purpose of section ... observe here that the expression 'comparable un- controlled transaction' signifies a transaction between enterprises other than associate ones; whether resident or non-resident. It has already come on record that the TPO in the instant case relied upon assessee's agreed price rate of US $ 161.20 per kg for Deltamethrin

Rakesh Jain, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax, Ward-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1700/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 24

appeal was filed on 11.9.2023 after a delay of 1695 Page 3 of 6 days. The assessee submitted that he is a non-resident, senior citizen aged about 75 years, living in Canada since 1974. The assessee was working with CGI Inc. India between 2011 to 2016 on contract basis

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

treat the amount as an undisclosed cash loan. 4. In response, the assessee filed a detailed written submission contending that she was a Non-Resident Indian residing in the USA for over twenty years and had borrowed the said amount jointly with her husband, Shri Sameer Shah, from M/s. Papenj ... Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 8. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian since past twenty years. In this case, the assessee along with her husband had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 million dollars

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 271F