← 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5334/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act by wrongly holding that the assessee company was a non-resident entity. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding the provisions of section 124(4) was applicable in this case ... Assessee being a foreign company is a resident in India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment orders

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5333/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act by wrongly holding that the assessee company was a non-resident entity. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding the provisions of section 124(4) was applicable in this case ... Assessee being a foreign company is a resident in India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment orders

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act by wrongly holding that the assessee company was a non-resident entity. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding the provisions of section 124(4) was applicable in this case ... Assessee being a foreign company is a resident in India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment orders

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bennett Williamson Engineers Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4056/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Assessee being a foreign company is a resident in India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment orders ... whether not passing of draft assessment order as per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act which is applicable to non-resident and whether the Assessee thereon is a resident of India?, in the case of CIT- International Taxation-2 Vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd. in ITA 556/2024

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bennett Williamson Engineers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4055/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Assessee being a foreign company is a resident in India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment orders ... whether not passing of draft assessment order as per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act which is applicable to non-resident and whether the Assessee thereon is a resident of India?, in the case of CIT- International Taxation-2 Vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd. in ITA 556/2024

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gainway Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4007/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Gainway Holdings Ltd. Vs Central Circle-19, Room C/O. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate No. 362, Ara Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Offices, Jhandewalan Extension, Advoate For The Respondent C- New Delhi 56, Lfg, Jangpura Extention, New Delhi-110014 Pan: Aafcg6056L Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Assessee being a foreign company is a resident in India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment order ... whether not passing of draft assessment order as per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act which is applicable to non-resident and whether the Assessee thereon is a resident of India?, in the case of CIT- International Taxation-2 Vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd. in ITA 556/2024

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gynia Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3916/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Assessee being a foreign company is a resident in India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment orders ... whether not passing of draft assessment order as per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act which is applicable to non-resident and whether the Assessee thereon is a resident of India?, in the case of CIT- International Taxation-2 Vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd. in ITA 556/2024

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gynia Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3915/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Assessee being a foreign company is a resident in India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment orders ... whether not passing of draft assessment order as per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act which is applicable to non-resident and whether the Assessee thereon is a resident of India?, in the case of CIT- International Taxation-2 Vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd. in ITA 556/2024

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Gynia Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3914/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Assessee being a foreign company is a resident in India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment orders ... whether not passing of draft assessment order as per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act which is applicable to non-resident and whether the Assessee thereon is a resident of India?, in the case of CIT- International Taxation-2 Vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd. in ITA 556/2024

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Focusoil Inc., New Delhi

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

ITA 3911/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs Focusoil Inc. Central Circle-19, Room C/O. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate No. 362, Ara Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Offices, Jhandewalan Extension, Advoate For The Respondent C- New Delhi 56, Lfg, Jangpura Extention, New Delhi-110014 Pan: Aaccf3908K Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

Assessee being a foreign company is a resident in India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment order ... whether not passing of draft assessment order as per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act which is applicable to non-resident and whether the Assessee thereon is a resident of India?, in the case of CIT- International Taxation-2 Vs. Rolland Enterprises Ltd. in ITA 556/2024

Sharad Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the is partly allowed

ITA 692/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Sharad Kumar Singh Circle-3(1), Income Tax Office 10A, Norode Behari Mullick Road, 3, Government Place, Vs. Kolkata-700006, West Bengal West Bengal-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alqps3842K Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 195Section 40Section 40A(3)

non- deduction of tax at source of ₹2,01,804/- paid to non-resident M/s Johnson matthey Noble Export who was non-resident having no PE in India and also no works were carried out in India. 3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee paid to M/s Johnson ... Officer. 3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that since the recipient of the money is non-resident and having no PE in India and also no work was carried out in India. Besides, the payment was made in foreign currency. Then

Eastern Shipping Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2787/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosaineastern Shipping Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito – 6(2)(1) Godrej Coliseum, Office No. Aayakar Bhavan 801, 8Th Floor, C Wing, Of Mumbai Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai – 400022. Pan/Gir No. Aahce1084E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

India. Although these arguments have been raised for the first time and expressed concern over whether the payment made by the assessee to the non-resident shipping line has been subjected to TDS and they have filed their return of income in India. In this regard Ld. AR submitted that ... other person being a resident or a non-resident of India would not make any difference to the principles as accepted by the High Court and the Tribunal referred to above. In any event of the matter, the assessee has also ensured that the foreign shipping line has deposited

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax.) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 862/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable ... based on this evidence placed on record and the same being not controverted we are of the considered view that when the assessee is non-resident as on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The bench further noted from order sheet entry dated 16.03.2023 that

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax), Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable ... based on this evidence placed on record and the same being not controverted we are of the considered view that when the assessee is non-resident as on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The bench further noted from order sheet entry dated 16.03.2023 that

Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. (throughFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263

return of income declaring total income of 1,13,290/- and claimed loss of Rs. 1,15,19,069/-. The assessee claimed to be non-resident taxpayer. That return of income so filed was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the verification of refund claimed by the assessee. Required notices

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 500/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Factive Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation )-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4706/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal & Factive Limited Asst. Cit(It)-2(3)(1) C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Llp 609, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 252, Veer Savarkar Marg, C-41, C-43, G Block, Vs. Shivaji Park, Dadar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 028 Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccf 5745 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W Appellant By Shri Yogesh Malpani & Ms. Kinjal Patel Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. Drp' For Short) & Pertains To The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since The Substantive Issue On Merits, Arising In The Appeals Are More Or Less Common In Both The Appeals, We Propose To Take Up Ita No. 4706/Mum/2023, Pertaining To A.Y. 2021-22, As The Lead Appeal. (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) Factive Limited Vs. Asst. Cit(It) 3. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Are Basically On Legal Issues, Challenging The Validity Of The Final Assessment Order. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Submitted That He Would Prefer To Address The Issues On Merits And, If Warranted, May Press The Legal Grounds.

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

DAPE in India. 7. Be that as it may, briefly the facts relevant for deciding the issues noted above are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity, incorporated in U.K. and is a tax resident of U.K. The basic business activities of the assessee, as described by the Assessing