“non-resident”

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bits N Bytes Soft Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Bits N Bytes Soft Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4(2), 6020, Sector B/8, Delhi. Vasant Kunj, Delhi – 110 070. Pan: Aadcb1497L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanmay Bhatnagar, Advocate & Shri Shivam Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Nfac/2017-18/10039043 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 24.02.2021 Passed U/S 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The National E- Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That An Addition Was Made U/S 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Receipt Of Share Premium In The Form Of Foreign Direct Investment From Two Non-Resident Investors, Chalet Llc & Ba India. The Nfac Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Following The Determination Of The Issue With Regard To Genuineness Of Transaction By Following The Findings Of The Cit(A) For Ay 2017-18. The Ld. Ar Has Pointed Out Before Us That The Revenue’S Appeal For Ay 2017-18 In Ita No.332/Del/2023 Stands Dismissed By Order Dated 30.06.2025 By A Coordinate Bench Accepting Genuineness Of Transaction, Including The Identity Of The Investors, Who Are Common Here. That Being The State Of Affairs, There Is No Substance In The Grounds As Raised. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Without Any Merits & The Same Is Dismissed.

Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of receipt of share premium in the form of foreign direct investment from two non-resident investors, Chalet LLC and BA India. The NFAC has allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the determination of the issue with regard to genuineness of transaction

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Yr.: 2006-07

Income-tax Act and, accordingly, TDS provisions would apply along with separate taxation of interest paid to head office or other branches of the non-resident, which would be chargeable to tax in India. 9.5 Some of the judicial rulings in this context have held that although under the provisions ... provided for in the Income-tax Act. 9.7 Accordingly, the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that in the case of a non-resident, being a person engaged in the business of banking, any interest payable by the permanent establishment in India of such non-resident

M/S. the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ufj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1 ITA Nos.3708 & 3756/Del/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D' NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi, ITO C.R Building vs. Insultech International Pvt. Ltd., Vasant Vihar

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

case of the assessee is selected for scrutiny under CASS for various reasons wherein one of the reason is larger outward remittances to a non-resident. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices from time to time which were duly replied by the assessee and finally

Bharat Jain, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi vs. AO/ADIT-CPC Bengaluru, Civic Centre, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbharat Jain, Vs. Adit – Cpc, Flat No.133, Pocket G, Sfs Flats, Bengaluru. Maharaja Agarsen Marg, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 076. (Pan : Aaapj4180E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate Shri Shivam Jain, Advocate Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2024 Date Of Order : 06.08.2024 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee For The Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Status Of 2 The Assessee Was Clearly Mentioned As Non-Resident As Residential Status Of The Assessee In Itr 3 Filed On 16.12.2020 With The Acknowledgement No.826193800161220. With The Above Facts On Record, He Submitted That The Authorities Below Proceeded To Apply The Provisions Of Section 44Ada Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For The Reason That Assessee Has Not Maintained Proper Books Of Account For Carrying On The Professional Activities, Therefore, They Applied The Presumptive Tax @ 50%. He Submitted That Provisions Of Section 44Ada Are Not Applicable To The Non-Resident & It Was Wrongly Applied In Assessee’S Case. He Further Submitted That The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal By Observing As Under:-

notice return of income filed by the assessee for the AY 2020-21 wherein the status of 2 the assessee was clearly mentioned as non-resident as residential status of the assessee in ITR 3 filed on 16.12.2020 with the acknowledgement no.826193800161220. With the above facts on record, he submitted ... carrying on the professional activities, therefore, they applied the presumptive tax @ 50%. He submitted that provisions of section 44ADA are not applicable to the non-resident and it was wrongly applied in assessee’s case. He further submitted that the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal by observing as under

DCIT Central Circle 05, Delhi vs. Deepak Kothari, Kanpur

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

further that where long-term capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, other than capital gain arising to a non-resident from the transfer of shares in, or debentures of, an Indian company referred to in the first proviso, the provisions of clause (ii) shall

Deepak Kathari, Kanpur vs. ACIT, CC-5, New Delhi

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

further that where long-term capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, other than capital gain arising to a non-resident from the transfer of shares in, or debentures of, an Indian company referred to in the first proviso, the provisions of clause (ii) shall