← 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

Venugoopal Subramanyam Raja, Kumbakonam vs. DCIT Cirle 2(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2855/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2855, 2856 & 2857/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Venugoopal Subramaniyam Raja, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 40/41, Town High School Road, Income Tax, Kumbakonam 612 001, Tamil Nadu. Circle 2(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aafpr5570F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 09.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(v)

section 195 of the I.T. Act, tax is to be deducted at source only when any payment is made by "any person" to a non-resident and such payment has an element of income embedded in it which is chargeable to tax in India. The expression "any person" referred ... resident in India. Section 195 applies only if payments are made by a resident to another non- resident and not between two non-residents. Section 195 of the Act does not apply to the present transaction because it was between two non-resident entities. The assessee is a non-resident

Balakumaran Balachandran, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1418/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri V. Balaji, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

that the assessee had filed a condonation petition before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining all the facts. During that period the assessee was a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). The order U/s. 143(1) of the Act for the Asst. Year 2018-19 was passed on 05/11/2019. Then, the assessee filed

Mahammad Aftab Kattilvalappil, Thalassery vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Kozhikode

ITA 543/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: None
Section 144Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice The AO issued notices only on the ITBA portal, but the Appellant, being a non-regular filer and non-resident, was unaware of the e- proceedings. Natural justice was violated as the Appellant had no opportunity to explain before the penalty was imposed

Murahari Devabathini, Secunderabad vs. ITO, (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 626/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.626/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Murahari Devabathini Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad (International Taxation)-2 Pan:Aqrpd7616J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ram Mohan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Schin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ram Mohan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Schin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 148Section 194ISection 69

account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property being Flat in Bangalore vide Sale Deed dated 07/07/2015. The assessee is an individual and Non-Resident during the A.Y 2016-17. The assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer received

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

confirmed and the Revenue's appeal dismissed. 2. The next issue is non-deduction of Tax out of payment on Export Commission to Non-Residents. The Assessing Officer disallowed a IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 18 -: sum of Rs.1,70,50,000/- being export selling commission

Praveena Singh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1227/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, Advocate

condone the said delay in filing the appeals. In the application to condone the said delays, the assessee submitted that she is a non-resident and Page 2 of 4 ITA Nos. 1226 & 1227/Bang/2025 residing in Germany and therefore she was not able to follow up the appeal proceedings ... Ld.CIT(A) in both the quantum appeal as well as the penalty appeal are ex-parte orders. The assessee submitted that she is a non-resident residing at Germany and therefore she has no knowledge about the notices issued by the AO as well as by the Ld.CIT

Praveena Singh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1226/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, Advocate

condone the said delay in filing the appeals. In the application to condone the said delays, the assessee submitted that she is a non-resident and Page 2 of 4 ITA Nos. 1226 & 1227/Bang/2025 residing in Germany and therefore she was not able to follow up the appeal proceedings ... Ld.CIT(A) in both the quantum appeal as well as the penalty appeal are ex-parte orders. The assessee submitted that she is a non-resident residing at Germany and therefore she has no knowledge about the notices issued by the AO as well as by the Ld.CIT

Luxeva India Private Limited, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed with aforesaid consequences to follow

ITA 4495/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms Neha Vikram, CA &For Respondent: Ms Amisha s. Gupt, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

hearing both the sides, we find that primarily the investments are by the holding company which is a non-resident Indian. It is undisputed fact that the holding company shares has increased. On a reading of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, it becomes very much clear that ... applicable to resident investors and not to non-residents. Reliance can be placed on co-ordinate bench decision in ITA No. 1526/Del/2022 M/s.Planet Gogo Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gurgaon order dated 24.02.23. Thus, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act have been erroneously

ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs. Subramaniam Hariharan, New Delhi

ITA 600/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Tanya Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

arise in India. Referring to section 195 of the Act it was submitted an obligation is cast on a person making payment to a non-resident of any sum, which is chargeable under the provisions of the Act, to deduct tax at the rates in force at the time ... payee, whichever is earlier. Thus, as per the aforesaid provision, tax is required to be withheld in respect of payments made to a non-resident only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court

Subramaniam Hariharan, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

ITA 9832/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

arise in India. Referring to section 195 of the Act it was submitted an obligation is cast on a person making payment to a non-resident of any sum, which is chargeable under the provisions of the Act, to deduct tax at the rates in force at the time ... payee, whichever is earlier. Thus, as per the aforesaid provision, tax is required to be withheld in respect of payments made to a non-resident only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 37, New Delhi

ITA 2134/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

arise in India. Referring to section 195 of the Act it was submitted an obligation is cast on a person making payment to a non-resident of any sum, which is chargeable under the provisions of the Act, to deduct tax at the rates in force at the time ... payee, whichever is earlier. Thus, as per the aforesaid provision, tax is required to be withheld in respect of payments made to a non-resident only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court

Surajgovind Estates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1186/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: him and explaining relevant entries in their books of accounts. Needless to say, none of the investors appeared before the Ld. AO in response to such summons. These factors prompted the Ld. AO to make the impugned addition which duly gave credit to amounts shown against two non-resident investors viz. Ms. Pushpa Patel and Mr. Mahendra Kumar Rajivbhai Patel.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

shares @ Rs. 100/- per share. The Ld. AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the share subscribers, except to two non-resident persons. The Ld. AO found that the payments made to the assessee company were immediately preceded by deposits in respective bank accounts ... response to such summons. These factors prompted the Ld. AO to make the impugned addition which duly gave credit to amounts shown against two non-resident investors viz. Ms. Pushpa Patel and Mr. Mahendra Kumar Rajivbhai Patel. 1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where

Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT/DCIT, International Taxation-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 366/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.366/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of #25-60, Tong Eng Building, 101, Cecil Income Tax, International Street, Singapore 069533. Taxation, Dcit, Intl. Tax 1(2), C/O. Bothra Shipping Services Private Chennai. Limited, Vasundhara, 9Th Floor, Unit-A, 2/7 Sarat Bose Road, L.R. Sarani S.O., Kalkata, West Bengal 700 020. [Pan: Aadcj0165F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 44B

lower authorities failed to appreciate that as per Article 8 of the India Singapore DTAA, any shipping income of a non-resident is taxable only in the country of residence, ie., Singapore and as such cannot be assessed to tax in India. 5. The lower authorities failed to appreciate that ... income to the residence country. Further, by entering into treaty with Singapore, India has given up its right to tax shipping income of a non-resident in India. Therefore, any income of a non- resident shipping company which is a tax resident of Singapore is liable to tax only

JCIT(OSD) I/C. of DCIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zt Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as per our aforesaid observations

ITA 1729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1729/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), I/C. Dcit-1(3)(1), Mumbai (M.H.)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 92C

present facts are on a higher pedestal as there is no charging provision to tax issue of shares at premium to a non-resident, then the occasion to invoke the computation provisions does not arise. We, therefore, find no substance in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the Revenue

ACIT Central Circle-05, New Delhi vs. Ve Commercial Vehicles Limited, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1411/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

Ground of appeal Nos. 2 to 2.1 raised by the assessee are with respect Dividend distribution tax on the dividend declared and paid to non-resident shareholders. 17. Before us, ld.AR fairly admits that this issue is covered against the assessee in terms of order of Hon’ble Special Bench

Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1101/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

Ground of appeal Nos. 2 to 2.1 raised by the assessee are with respect Dividend distribution tax on the dividend declared and paid to non-resident shareholders. 17. Before us, ld.AR fairly admits that this issue is covered against the assessee in terms of order of Hon’ble Special Bench

Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1100/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

Ground of appeal Nos. 2 to 2.1 raised by the assessee are with respect Dividend distribution tax on the dividend declared and paid to non-resident shareholders. 17. Before us, ld.AR fairly admits that this issue is covered against the assessee in terms of order of Hon’ble Special Bench

Manisha Kiran Temkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT -21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 674/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 195Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 90(2)

business transaction carried out by assessee outside India and only in case of Imperial Impact Bangladesh Ltd., the assessee has agreement with the said non-resident party to look after the execution of sale and its allied activities, copy of agreement was furnished. On considering such reply, the assessing officer ... fact covered in favour of the assessee by a series of decision wherein it has been consistently held that when recipient is non-resident and provided services outside India and he is not liable to pay tax in India, no TDS is required to be made on such payment

Manish Kiran Temkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 673/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 195Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 90(2)

business transaction carried out by assessee outside India and only in case of Imperial Impact Bangladesh Ltd., the assessee has agreement with the said non-resident party to look after the execution of sale and its allied activities, copy of agreement was furnished. On considering such reply, the assessing officer ... fact covered in favour of the assessee by a series of decision wherein it has been consistently held that when recipient is non-resident and provided services outside India and he is not liable to pay tax in India, no TDS is required to be made on such payment

Shafi Musaliar Sainalabdeen Musaliar, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 231/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

ICICI Bank account, export turnover of Rs. 1,50,21,297, import of Rs. 47,30,181, and receipt of remittances from non-residents of Rs. 1,60,85,569 during the relevant year. In response, the assessee filed the return of income along with the audit report before