← 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

Aparna Sandeep Kulkarani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 909/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a Non-resident Indian. The assessee and her husband had purchased an under construction residential flat being Flat No. 1005 in Tower-9 in a project

Shri Sanjay Gordhandas Vaja, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, International Taxation, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.89/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sanjay Gordhandas Vaja Income Tax Officer Int. 202, Harmony Heights, Capital Road, बनाम Tax), Gandhidham, Income- Science City, Ahmedabad-380 060 Tax Office, Amruta Estate /Vs. Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Ahtpv 3289 L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Aseem Takkar, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19, Is Directed Against The Final Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, (After Incorporating Findings Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2 Mumbai, Dated 29.12.2023), Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) .

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Takkar, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

permissible under the Act. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making additions u/s 69 of the Act not appreciating the fact that non-residents cannot be taxed u/s 69 of the Act unless it is proved that the investments are made out of income generated in India ... made by the ld/DRP/AO may be deleted. 14. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submitted that no doubt to open Non-resident India (NRI) account, is allowed but the deposit made in NRI account should be come from the NRI, Foreign Bank, outside India

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Visakhapatnam vs. Shri Apparao Mukkamala, Usa

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

under section 69A of the Act, which has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee, a non-resident individual, had filed his return of income for A.Y 2016-17 on 28.12.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 6,09,06,180, which, inter

Deepak Parekh, Usa vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 126/IND/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(1)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE IN THE MATTER OF SHRI DEEPAK PAREKH ITA 126/IND/2025 (Assessee’s Appeal) SYNOPSIS / SUBMISSION . The assessee appellant a Non-Resident Indian, filed his original return of income for assessment year 2022-23 on 24.07.2022 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,49,729/-, claiming

Evolution Golf Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 754/MUM/2025[2010-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2010-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Assessing Officer has entered share premium amount as Rs.68,63,750/- and share application Rs.37, 12,500/- Shares were issued at premium to Non-Resident only. Date of receipts, FIRC No. amount received in Foreign currency & equivalent IN R & reconciliation of amount received with value of shares issued have already

Foods and Inns Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4511/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

export of fruit pulps, concentrates and processed vegetables to various international markets. During the year, it paid ₹25,84,396/- as commission to non-resident agents located in the UK, Australia, Netherlands, France, UAE, Hong Kong and Germany. These agents neither had any business operations in India nor any permanent ... Foods and Inns Limited 6. The learned CIT(A), while affirming the disallowance, reasoned that the payments to non-residents were covered by the deeming provisions of Section 9(1). According to him, once commission and warehousing charges partook the character of consultancy, technical or managerial services, they fell within

DCIT(It)-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Gold Star Lines Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 4052/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4052/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit (It)-2(3)(2), V/S. Gold Star Lines Ltd Mumbai बिधम 804 To 806, Windsor Off Cst Kautilya Bhawan, G Road, Santacruz East, Block, Bkc, Mumbai Vidyanagari, S.O., Mumbai 400098 400098 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg5389F Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee Shri. Bomi Daruwala/ Ms. Priyanka Jain/ Mr. Pankaj Soni/ Ms. Sofiya By: Shanmugam/ Ms. Anita Basrur Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITAT to add, amend or alter the ground herein, if requires.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a non-resident for A.Y. 2022-23 and had filed return declaring total income of Rs. 10,53,680/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment ... assessee company qualifies as a tax resident of Israel. Synopsis of the arguments of Ld. AR is as under: “1. Gold Star is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of Hongkong for geopolitical reasons and not for purpose of tax evasion (Paras 3, 6.1 2 of CIT Appeals

Poornima Sanjay Prabhu, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 6Section 69

case as culled out from the record and also stated before us that the assessee, Mrs. Poornima Prabhu (PAN: BZQPP2311E), is a Non-Resident Indian, residing in the United Arab Emirates for over two decades with her husband, Mr. Sanjay Prabhu. For the previous year relevant ... assessee visited India only for 45 days and was, therefore, a Non-Resident within the meaning of section 6 of the Act. She is a homemaker without any source of income chargeable to tax in India and hence was under no obligation to file a return of income

JCIT (OSD) -3(4), Mumbai vs. Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, appeals of both, the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 612/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Ms. Palak Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

thus, held that where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder which attracts additional income tax, i.e. tax on distributed profits referred in Section 115-O, such additional tax payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate mentioned in Section ... rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income. Ld. CIT(A) thus, by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench (supra) rejected the claim of refund made by the assessee and the ground of appeal

Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 584/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Ms. Palak Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

thus, held that where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder which attracts additional income tax, i.e. tax on distributed profits referred in Section 115-O, such additional tax payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate mentioned in Section ... rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income. Ld. CIT(A) thus, by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench (supra) rejected the claim of refund made by the assessee and the ground of appeal

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

these cases. 169. 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

Ebay Singapore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2378/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(2)Section 253

above grounds of appeal, at any time during the appellate proceedings.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in 2003 in Singapore. It provides e-commerce-related services to its group companies, such as product management, business development, customer service

Chirag Kirpal, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 656/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarchirag Kirpal, Vs. Acit, C/O. Anuj Bhatia, C-3, Bali International Taxation, Nagar, New Raja Garden, Gurgaon New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bwxpk8788D Assessee By : Shri. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee is a Non-Resident Indian and has not filed his return of income under section 139 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. Information in this case

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Jaipur vs. Bharat Kumar Manghnani, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69Section 69A

time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident Individual and has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19. As per information available in AIR/TAS/26AS details, it was observed ... from SBI Bank, (ii) having account balance of Rs. 34,53,197/- with ICICI bank account, (iii) made payment to non-resident amounting to Rs. 76,845/- and (iv) received foreign remittance of Rs. 1052/- during the financial year 2017- 18. Assessee has entered into large transactions

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

more than puppets then the turning point in respect of the subsidiary's place of residence comes about. Similarly, if an actual controlling Non-Resident Enterprise (NRE) makes an indirect transfer through "abuse of organisation form/legal form and without reasonable business purpose" which results in tax avoidance or avoidance ... withholding tax, then the Revenue may disregard the form of the arrangement or the impugned action through use of Non-Resident Holding Company, recharacterize the equity transfer according to its economic substance and impose the tax on the actual controlling Non-Resident Enterprise. Thus, whether a transaction is used principally

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

more than puppets then the turning point in respect of the subsidiary's place of residence comes about. Similarly, if an actual controlling Non-Resident Enterprise (NRE) makes an indirect transfer through "abuse of organisation form/legal form and without reasonable business purpose" which results in tax avoidance or avoidance ... withholding tax, then the Revenue may disregard the form of the arrangement or the impugned action through use of Non-Resident Holding Company, recharacterize the equity transfer according to its economic substance and impose the tax on the actual controlling Non-Resident Enterprise. Thus, whether a transaction is used principally

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

more than puppets then the turning point in respect of the subsidiary's place of residence comes about. Similarly, if an actual controlling Non-Resident Enterprise (NRE) makes an indirect transfer through "abuse of organisation form/legal form and without reasonable business purpose" which results in tax avoidance or avoidance ... withholding tax, then the Revenue may disregard the form of the arrangement or the impugned action through use of Non-Resident Holding Company, recharacterize the equity transfer according to its economic substance and impose the tax on the actual controlling Non-Resident Enterprise. Thus, whether a transaction is used principally

Rangsons Schuster Technologies Private Limited, Mandya vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)& Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 1490/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.9, Hebbal Ii Nd Phase Viadb Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, Belagolahobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. Pan : Aafcr 4493 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 195BSection 40

have any permanent-establishment or business connection in India. The profits of the services rendered outside India cannot be taxed in India unless the non-resident has permanent establishment/or business connection in India as envisaged in Sec. 9(1) of the Act. It was further submitted that the recipient ... which it has been held that the profits of the services rendered outside India cannot be taxed in India unless the non-resident is a permanent establish or has business connection as envisaged in section 9(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that in the case

Maya Rathore, Jaipur vs. Assessing Authority, Jaipur

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

ITA 823/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2023-24
For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 194HSection 250Section 44A

regime. Here are the eligibility criteria and key features of Section 115BAC: Eligibility Criteria: a) Individual Taxpayers: Any individual taxpayer, whether a resident or non-resident, can opt for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC. b) Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs): HUFs are also eligible

DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Satyam Venture Engineering Service Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1242/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1242/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dy. Cit Vs. Satyam Venture Central Circle 3(2) Engineering Service Hyderabad Private Limited Hyderabad Pan: Aafcs3287D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Ev Sri Krishna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri T.V. Vamsidhar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/06/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A), Hyderabad -11 For The A.Y.2022-23. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA EV Sri KrishnaFor Respondent: : Shri T.V. Vamsidhar, Sr. AR
Section 40

ACIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 77 and Bharti Airtel Ltd., vs. ITO [2016] 67 taxmann.com 223 (Delhi - Trib) and reached a conclusion that when a non-resident receives certain amounts fall in the category of FTS and there is no FTS clause in India-Thailand DTAA, such receipts have