← 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

Jignesh Naresh Jariwala, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 4673/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Milind Dattani / Ms. Nidhi JainFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha P. Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89A

redemption, as the case may be, in the notified country. (2) to (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) In a case where the specified person becomes a non-resident during any relevant previous year, then- (i) the option exercised under sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to have never been exercised with effect

Zubin Jehanbux Gandevia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1789/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)

issued by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore was submitted with the Learned AO. For the said period, the Assessee was a non-resident of Indie per the provisions of S. 6 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) and India-Singapore DTAA At the time of filing ... Article 10 of the India Singapore DTAA. It is hereby submitted that per the provisions of section 5(2) of the Act, non-resident individuals are taxable in India in respect of a. Income received or deemed to be received in India and b. Income accruing or arising in India

Munich Re Automation Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax, 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3766/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.3766/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2021-22) Munich Re Automation Solutions Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Mountain View, Central Park, Leopardstown Office Park, Dublin, Ireland ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaicm-2594-E बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle International Tax-2(2)(1), New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Ms. Reema Grewal & Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr & Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.10.2023 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Ay 2021-22. 2. Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That He Is Not Pressing Ground No. 2 Of Appeal Challenging Validity Of Assessment Order On The Ground Of Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Ms. Reema Grewal, and Ms. Snigdha Gautam, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

manufacturer. (ii) The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign, non-resident suppliers or manufacturers and then reselling the same to resident Indian end-users. (iii) The third category concerns cases wherein the distributor happens ... foreign, non-resident vendor, who, after purchasing software from a foreign, non-resident seller, resells the same to resident Indian distributors or end-users. (iv) The fourth category includes cases wherein computer software is affixed onto hardware and is sold as an integrated unit/equipment by foreign, non-resident suppliers

DCIT., (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad vs. Syama Reddy Mali Reddy, Hyderabad

ITA 366/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 54Section 54F

raised with the prior approval of the Hon'ble ITAT during the appellate proceedings.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee, who is a Non-Resident Individual (NRI), had filed her Return of Income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 22.07.2019, declaring an income of Rs. 5,25,81,858/-. Subsequently, the case

Ramasamy Pushpa, Namakkal vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ramasamy Pushpa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 2/31, Sankarampalayam Village, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Kumaripalayam Post, Chennai. Namakkal 637 015. [Pan:Cvwpp7128R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 144CSection 147Section 56

drew our attention to sub-section (15) of section 144C of the Act and submits that sub-clause (ii) i.e., any non-resident, not being a company or any foreign company substituted by Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2020. Further, he submits that prior to substitution of sub-clause (ii), explains ... foreign company” and there is no mention of any non-resident. He argued that since no transfer pricing issue relating to international transaction involved in the year under consideration, draft assessment order passed under section 144C of the Act is not maintainable as the assessee was not an “eligible assessee

M/S.Apollo Tyres Ltd, Cochin vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incometax, Cochin

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

income-tax, the payee should deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force, if the amount is to be paid to a non-resident. The said provision is for tentative deduction of income-tax thereon subject to regular assessment and by the deduction of income-tax, rights

Amardeep Sandhu, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 92/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Amardeep Sandhu, Vs The Ito, Jagjit Singh Anil Batra, Chandigarh. Sco 45, 2Nd Floor, Sector 41D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cheps4310N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anil Batra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Ld. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 Physical Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Anil Batra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. ld. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 195

Appeals) read as under : Statement of Facts PAN : CHEPS4310N Amardeep Sandhu A. Y 2023-24 Para 1. That the assessee is a Canadian non-resident and for the year under consideration he had sold property i.e House No 1602, Sector 36 D, Chandigarh for a consideration

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kanpur vs. M.K.U Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 509/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Rs.5,86,94,110/-. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Department that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs.6.42 Crores paid to non-resident under various heads of expenditure viz., export commission Rs.1.98 Crores, interest to foreign bank Rs.41.35 Lacs and testing charges of Rs.4 ... noted that the assessee had paid testing charges to non-resident for certification about quality of bullet proof vest for bullet penetration and strength. From the same, he concluded that testing charges were in the nature of fee for technical services which were covered under section

Masilamani Kavitha, Rep. by Masilamani, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Taxation Ward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non-maintainable

ITA 1748/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1748/ Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K.Meenakshi Sundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Mrs. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(3)Section 147

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 21.05.2025. ITA No.1748/ Chny/2025 Masilamani Kavitha :- 2 -: 2. The Assessing a Non-Resident and has sold immovable property but has not filed the return of income. The A.O. reopened the assessment and proposed addition

Sumit Yadav, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1658/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsumit Yadav, Vs. Ito, C/O. B-50, Lgf, South Ward-4(1), Extension-Ii, New Delhi Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Atnpy6196K

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 197Section 254

Pooja Singh. At the time of agreement entered on 13.04.2021, Rs. 5 lakhs was paid. It is not in dispute that seller is a non-resident Indian. The seller Shri Prashant Singh obtained a lower deduction of TDS certificate from the competent authority on 06.07.2021 wherein, only the name

Vazhoor Sudarsanan Thampi, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 893/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

onwards. Page 4 of 14 6. The learned assessing Officer examined the details and noted that the assessee is a resident of Dubai, a non-resident Indian for taxation purpose for the impugned assessment year. Thus, the status of assessee as non-resident Indian was accepted. The explanation ... account of the assessee maintained with the federal bank. Out of That Rs. 160 lakhs were withdrawn from that account and transferred to the non-resident external deposit account of the assessee. But ld AO did not believe the claim of the assessee stating that assessee did not submit

Accenture Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3457/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Accenture Solutions Private Limited Pr. Cit, 501, 5Th Floor, Plat 3, Godrej & Boycee Compound, Vikhroli (W), Vikhroli S.O., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 079 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pal Kumar Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vp: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 20.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-6 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration Is Whether The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, Can Be Subjected To Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act. For Deciding This Issue, Few Necessary Facts Are Required To Be Considered. The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Providing Information Technology (It)/Information Technology Enabled Service (Ites) To Its Group Companies As Well As Consulting Services To Its Clients. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 80G

arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.] 18. A reading of the said section brings to the fore following:- The assessee has option

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

ITA 2396/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 9(1)(vii)

learned PCIT erred in concluding that the Assessing Officer, during the reassessment proceedings, did not verify the details of services rendered by the non-residents and simply agreed with the submissions of the assessee 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned PCIT erred ... India without deduction of tax at source to ensure compliance of section 40(A)(i). Assessee explained its case that the professional fees to non-residents was not income chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the overseas entities and therefore, TDS was not required to be done

Vidvata Interview Makers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1237/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Vidvata Interview Makers Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd, 902, Shyam Kunj, Gurgaon Plot No.26, J.B. Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400059 Pan No.Aaccv2915J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manish Rastogi, Advocate Sh. Uma Shankar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 249(2)Section 250

principal place of business at Patna in the State of Bihar. 4. The Principal promoter of the assessee Company Sh. Parthsarthi Kumar was Non-Resident Indian, as such, the Company was registered at a temporary address at New Delhi, but the business operations were never carried on at the said

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 7113/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting disallowance of commission expenses amounting to Rs. 2,21,14,782/- paid to Non-resident viz. M/s Blesba Trade & M/s Societe Amar Consulting when the agents were also providing the assessee allied services and their services were in nature ... liable to be dismissed. 7. Ground no. 2 relates to, deletion of disallowance of commission expances amounting Rs 2,21,14,782/- paid to Non-Resident M/S Blesba Trade & M/S Societe Amar Consulting when the agents were also providing the assessee allied services and their services were in nature

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 5502/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting disallowance of commission expenses amounting to Rs. 2,21,14,782/- paid to Non-resident viz. M/s Blesba Trade & M/s Societe Amar Consulting when the agents were also providing the assessee allied services and their services were in nature ... liable to be dismissed. 7. Ground no. 2 relates to, deletion of disallowance of commission expances amounting Rs 2,21,14,782/- paid to Non-Resident M/S Blesba Trade & M/S Societe Amar Consulting when the agents were also providing the assessee allied services and their services were in nature

Vaidyanathan Rajesh, Kochi vs. Assistant Commissioner, Kochi

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

ITA 450/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan R, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69

found that the assessee had purchased an immovable property and purchased some units in mutual funds and also made payment to non-residents. Thereafter notice u/s. 148 and notices u/s. 142(1) were issued on 27/01/2022 and 14/02/2022 in which some details were required by the AO. The assessee ... funds for the investments were through the accounting channel of the assessee. The assessee further submitted Page 4 of 6 that he is a non-resident Indian and therefore for investments made in the property as well as the units, he had the sources. The assessee also further submitted that

Panda Srinivas, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

ITA 682/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54F

Srinivas 4 Panda Srinivas 5 Panda Srinivas 6 Panda Srinivas 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O. based on information that the assessee who is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) had though carried out transactions of purchase/sale of properties during the subject year, but had not filed his return of income, initiated

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax It 3.1.2, Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai vs. Kuwait Investment Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4207/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)

authorities below. Assessment for AY 2003-04 was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the status of the assessee was non-resident company. Similarly, in AY 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2014-15, the assessments were framed u/s 143 of the Act and the status ... assessee was taken as non-resident company. This Tribunal in ITA No. 3081/Mum/2011; AY 2008-09, has held as under:- "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that assessee is registered as FII with the SEBI, that the government of Kuwait had established

Jayshree Rao, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1262/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaljayshree Rao, Vs. 401, Ivory, Nr. Pantaloon, The Income Tax Officer, Lawgarden, Mithakhali, Ward 1(2)(1), Navrangpura, Vadodara Ahmedabad-380009 [Pan :Arlpr 8185 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

require to be deleted.” Jayshree Rao Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 3. The assessee, in this case, is an individual and a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) residing in the United Kingdom for the past 30 years. The assessee did not earn any taxable income in India during