“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. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 250/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115ASection 250Section 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

Hotel Selection Grand, Tadepalligudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

ITA 741/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.741/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2016-17) Hotel Selection Grand Gollagundam Centre K.N. Road Tadepalligudem-534101 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakfh0778C] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 Aayakar Bhavan, 2-1-56/1 Opp. Punjab National Bank K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Ravish Sood, Jm: : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca : Sri K.Prasad, Sr.Dr : 12.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 24.10.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short "A.O”) Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 06.01.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: "1. The Notice Under Section 148 Issued On 18.04.20232 For The

Section 115BSection 142ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 234ASection 69A

person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent ... such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Explanation For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Vijayawada vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 732/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 Page. No 11 I.T.A.No.732/VIZ/2025 Andhra Pradesh Housing Board and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice ... made on him as the agent of such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Explanation For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections

Indutch Composites Technology Private Limited, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 2004/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 56(2)

shares issued to non residents, despite clear documentary evidence including board resolutions indicating that a substantial portion of the shares were allotted to non-resident investors, to whom the said section was not applicable during the relevant assessment year ITA No. 2004/Ahd/2025 [Indutch Composites Technology Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner ... issue while making and confirming the addition. He contended that the majority of the shares issued during the year were issued to non-residents to whom the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act were not applicable at all. He further contended that the rejection of assessee

Karadi Path Education Company Private Limited, Chennai vs. Commissioner, Chennai

ITA 1848/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1848/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karadi Path Education Company Private Limited, 3A No.11, Dev Regency, I Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. [Pan: Aaeck-2995-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Corporate Circle -4(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Pradhan Priya Dass, C.A. (By Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Dated 29.04.2025 In Respect Of The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (In Short 'Ao') Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘The Act') Dated 28.04.2021. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Pradhan Priya Dass, C.A. (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

this connection the Id.AR submitted that the assessee had on an earlier occasion issued and allotted shares at a Premium to a Non-Resident assessee which was based on a price determined on the basis of a Valuation report of an Independent Chartered Accountant as per extant FEMA regulations

Johnson Praveen Quadros, Australia vs. Income Tax Officer, Intl Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5778/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Johnson Praveen Quadros Income Tax Officer, Intl Tax Australia Ward 3 (3)(1) C/0 Room No.626, 6Th Floor, E 602, Nazrene Appts Marve Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Vs. Road, Kharodi Malad West Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400095 Mumbai-400051 Maharashtra (Pan: Aacpq0820G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Anoop Kumar Agarwal, Ca Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Act Dated 28.08.2025, Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai Vide Order Dated 28.07.2025 Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2025-26/1078981626(1) Dated 28.07.2025 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69

addition of Rs.14,70,000/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non-resident Indian (NRI) in the year under consideration. Return of income was not filed for the year. Based on the information available regarding purchase of immovable

Choday Janaki Ramayya Chowdary, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 623/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Mustafa Alihusain Sunelwala, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

further development is to be taken at Rs. 46,44,222/- (50% of Rs.92,88,444/-) (after indexation). Comments: The assessee remained a non-resident in 2018, during the period when the development expenses were incurred using his Non-Resident Income. The details of these payments, including the relevant bank ... total Income of Rs.40,17,320/-, which included capital gain of Rs.38,11,873/- from the sale of property. As the assessee is a non-resident applicable, tax was deducted at source u/s 195 of the Act. It is the contention of the Ld. AR that the assessee inadvertently claimed

Saikat Chinmay Bhattacharya, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

ITA 582/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.582/Bang/2025

For Appellant: CA Darshit Naik, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69

critical for a fair adjudication of the matter. 4. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual non-resident Indian did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 under the provisions contained under section 139 of the Act. There

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Freightbridge Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 7792/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/w Mr. Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44B

Vendors mentioned in the assessment order as (1) CMA CGM SA () MSC Mediterranean Shipping G Company SA & (m) Zim Integrated Shipping Services Limited are Non-Residents in India and these entities are filing their returns of income based on the provisions of Section 172 of the Act. Therefore, these entities ... profit margins of the appellant never had such higher margins since incorporation, and it is found that the main vendors of the appellant are non-residents due to which they have filed nil ITRs in the country. This fact does not in any way help the AO in estimating

Shri Leo Diniz, Borda, Fatorda vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji

The appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 150/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Deniz Row House No. 6 J P Andrade Residency, Borda Fatorda, Goa-403602 Pan: Amgpd8687A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging Order Dt.

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(1)

Deniz Vs DCIT ITA No. 150/PAN/2024 AY: 2016-17 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that; 2.1 The assessee is a non-resident individual [‘NRI’], who filed return of income on 18/07/2016 declaring total income of ₹86,060/- comprising interest etc., with a claim of exempted salary

M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT Range-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

from our ICICI Bank Account No. 628105500454. The remittance was made in foreign currency after filing Form 15CA where in payments are made to Non-Resident Entities without deduction of TDS. Copy of Bank Statement with ICICI Bank is at page 222-224 of the Paper book. In Form 15CA

Sureshkumar Kasturram Purohit, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax, Ward - 2, Ahmedabad

ITA 386/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 144CSection 148Section 69

386/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Sureshkumar Kasturram Purohit vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is non-resident residing in USA since April 2002 and is citizen of USA. The assessee booked a residential flat at Kandawali West, Mumbai in the Year

Manish Kantilal Haria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer International Tax Ward 2 (2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6187/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Chag (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 250

appeal will be required to be filed before Hon'ble ITAT against ex-party appellate order by CIT(A) for A.Y. 2020-21. Being non-resident and was out of India, recently, came to India, hence giving this affidavit now. 9. In light above referred circumstances that my C.A. looking

Neeta Bhambhani, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, (It), Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA 3124/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Adv. Ema Bindu, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT D.R

Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

record and these are critical for a fair adjudication of the matter. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non-resident individual. The primary source of income for the assessee in India are interest on fixed deposits/ term deposits, interest from perpetual bonds and interest ... 30/03/2024. The assessee in her response contended that she is a resident of United Arab Emirates (UAE) and thus a non-resident for the year under consideration. Further, the assessee submitted that the payments towards the investment in term deposits and cash deposits were out of foreign salary income

Mkf International, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7726/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmkf International Dcit Circle 17(1), 1903/1905, Aarus Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Wallace Fortuna, Shivdas Vs. Bkc, Mumbai – Chapsi Marg, Opp-Fazlani 400 051 School, Chinchbunder Ho, Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Gir No. Abhfm5244N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah A/W Ms. Mitali Parekh, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 68

show cause notice, the assessee furnished the details and submitted that the capital was introduced by four partners out of which three partners were Non-Residents. It was also submitted that the funds represented business income earned outside India, particularly in UAE and the transactions were effected through proper banking ... Assessing Officer has, in substance, required the assessee to explain the source of the source of capital introduced by the partners, particularly the Non-Resident partners. It was contended that once the identity of the partners and the fact of introduction of capital through banking channels stood established, the Assessing

Lic Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6974/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

extending the similar benefit to a resident/deductor who has deducted tax at source and deposited the same before remitting the amount payable to a non-resident/foreign company. 38. Providing for payment of interest in case of refund of amounts paid as tax or deemed tax or advance ... similar benefit to a resident/ deductor who has deducted tax at source and deposited the same before remitting the amount payable to a non-resident/ foreign company. 38. Providing for payment of interest in case of refund of amounts paid as tax or deemed tax or advance

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6973/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6972/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.) and Amicus CuriaeFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

Firstrand Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

that, inter alia, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, any amount payable outside India, or payable in India to a non-resident, shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession’ on which tax is deductible ... Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted. The disallowance under section 40(a)(i) is not for the payments made to non-residents, which are taxable in India, but for the payments on which tax was deductible at source but tax has not been deducted, and such