“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

ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Durr India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1638/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit, Durr India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle 1 (1), Vs. 471, Prestige Polygon, Chennai. Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. Pan: Aaacd 3568P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40

back the matter to the file of AO for verification as to why the audited reports of the company considered the payments made to non-residents. The claim of the assessee that the payments were made to residents ought to have been verified before grant of relief. 3.The Ld.CIT ... payments made. Adjustment was made u/s.143(1) of the Act, since it was reported in Form 3CD, payments were made to non-resident without TDS deduction. Before the FAA, the assessee submitted that there was an error in reporting in Form 3CD. It was submitted that payments were made

DCIT, Pune vs. Barclays Global Service Centre Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 2353/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2353/Pun/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. counselFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 40

even as a fee for technical services. He argued that as per Section 195 r.w.s 90(2) of the Act, the taxability for a non-resident taxpayer is determined based on provision of the Act or the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), whichever is more beneficial to the taxpayer

ACIT(It)-4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Mumbai

ITA 3795/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and holds a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by the Revenue authorities of USA. Assessee is a non-resident and has earned the below mentioned incomes during the year under consideration: i. Income attributable to the liaison office in India. ii. Interest income earned

ACIT(It)-4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3794/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

ACIT, Spl. Range-9, New Delhi vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 7598/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

alleging that the cost recharges earned by the non- resident parties, were liable to tax in India in the hands of such non-resident parties. 13. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action ... outset, reproduced herein below the relevant provisions of section 195, "195. (1) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest (not being interest on securities) or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being

Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Spl.Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 7526/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Additional Commissioner Of Income 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Tax, Special Range-9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner Of M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Income Tax, Special Range-9, 106-107, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi-110002 Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Tushar Jarwal, Adv. Shri Aayush Nagpal, Adv. & Shri Vikrant Maheshwari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Bandaru Padmaja, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal. In Respect Of The Belated Filing Of The Appeal, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Relevant Contents Are Scanned & Pasted Herein Below:

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

issue of differential amount of rent, the submission of the Ld. AR is that Mr. B. Chakrapani, son of the assessee, is a non-resident and the rental income receivable by him is credited to the account of the assessee. He therefore pleaded that these additions cannot be made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2.1.1, Vejalpur vs. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1268/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

funds. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the payment of Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT'), on the dividend declared to the Appellant's non-resident shareholders, at the rate prescribed under section 115-0 of the Act4, instead of payment of DDT at the rate prescribed in the Double

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vejalpur vs. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kachchh

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1261/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

Mundra International Container Terminal Private Limited, Mundra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1241/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute between the parties that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessment has been reopened u/sec.147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated

DCIT., Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. United Developer, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 453/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

case before the Hon’ble High Court, the assessee company had issued a cheque of Rs. 10 lac towards commission to a non-resident for facilitating raising of share capital from the non-resident investors. However, the said cheque was returned by the commission agent for the reason that

DCIT., Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. United Developer, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 452/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 153C

Moreshwar Builders and Developers & Tejas Superstrctures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 3448/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Moreshwar Builders & Income Tax Officer, Developers & Tejas Ward-3(2), Superstructures Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Private Limited Jv, Kalyan Murbad Road, A-01, Shubhvastu Apartment, Above Canara Bank, Pandit Dindayal Road, Kalyan Dombivli West, Maharashtra-421301. Thane, Maharashtra-421202. Pan : Aabam6975E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Ahmedabad, Dated 13-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 40

consideration the submissions so filed by the assessee and the fact that the payment has been made to resident company and not to a non-resident company and basis the submissions so made and applying the provisions as relates to facts of the case, has restricted the disallowance from

Celestial Vision Limited, Bvi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1625/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Celestial Vision V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited बिधम Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) Po Box No. 146, Road 604, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Town, Tortola, British Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Virgin Islands (East)400051. 111000. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc1160A Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR DR

Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

above Grounds of Appeal before or during the hearing of the Appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident company registered in the British Virgin Island (BVI). It is a tax resident of BVI for the year under consideration. The assessee filed

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2141/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 195

with regard to the appeals for 2015-16 and 2017-18, the ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee is a non-resident individual residing in the United Kingdom and this fact is not disputed by the Revenue. The assessee’s return ... were filed declaring her status as non-resident. Later, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 16.03.2022. The AO was fully conscious of this aspect and, accordingly in the show cause notice as well as the impugned assessment order specifically notes that