← 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

Umeshbhai Ramanlal Shah, Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 1104/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. It is explained that the assessee is a non-resident and was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. Hence, no compliance could be made in the course of assessment proceedings

Neeru Arora, Chandigarh vs. Circle-1, International Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 60/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 53A

order of the Income Tax Department, Circle-1, International Taxation, Chandigarh dt. 03/03/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). Based on information received by the department, the assessee had executed a sale of immovable property for a consideration

Teju Kiran Hole Narsipura Murthy, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 789/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 115A(5)Section 115BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PROCEEDINGS: 3. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the Appellant was a non-resident and hence, the Ld AO did not have jurisdiction over the Appellant for initiating the proceedings under section ... erred in not appreciating that since the Appellant was non-resident, the Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) had jurisdiction over the Appellant. 5. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the Appellant being a non-resident was 'eligible assessee' as per section 144C

Rangaraj Rohini, Indiranagar Bangalore vs. Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax Asmnt Circle 2(1) Bangalore, Kormangala Bangalore

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

ITA 224/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Return for AY 2022-23 on 16.05.2022, declaring total income at Rs. 64,86,380/- only. The assessee declared her residential status as "Non-Resident." The assessee reported IT(TP)A No.224/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 7 long-term capital gains of Rs. 64,86,375/- from the sale of immovable

Elsie Hubald, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: 19.06.2025
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 69

making addition of an amount of Rs.43,67,491/- as unexplained investment u/s69 of the act..” 2. The assessee is an individual and non-resident Indian. The assessee did not file the return of income for AY 2015-16. The AO noticed that the assessee has purchased a property during

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2129/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora; Shri Lekh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

from operation of ships. Section 44B of the Act contains special provisions for computation of profits & gains of shipping business in the case of non-residents. Section 44B(1) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section ... business. Section 44B of the Act reads as under: “44B. Special provision for computing profits and gains of shipping business in the case of non-residents. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43A, in the case of an assessee, being a non-resident, engaged

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

Ireland has been modified. The MLI provisions take effect with respect to all taxes withheld at source on amounts paid or credited to non-residents, where the event giving rise to such taxes occurs on or after 01.04.2020 in India. Hence, the current assessment proceedings have to take ... would thus be seen that in order to constitute a "business connection" as contemplated by section 42, there must be an activity of the non-resident in the taxable territories having an intimate and real relation of a continuous character with the business of the non-resident and contributing

Shri Dilip J. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 6268/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Shri Dilip J. Thakkar Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), 111A Currimji Building, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400023. East, [Pan No. Aacpt9000H] Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 153ASection 254(1)

source of fund in the trust we have already discussed in the earlier part of the order that Mr. SuryakantSuchak who was a non-resident Indian settled in UK alongwith his parents since several decades had applied for resurgent Indian bonds in 1998 which was issued on 31/10/1998 and they ... list of beneficiaries in the trust. Secondly, the source of funds also came through inheritance of Mr. ChagganlalSuchak who was a UK Citizen (non-resident Indian) settled in UK till his death in June 1999. The main trustees of the trust as well as the beneficiaries were all foreign citizens

Intertek India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4660/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT- DR
Section 115Section 237

owner of the dividend is a resident in France, the tax so charged shall not exceed specified percent. The first condition is that the non-resident in France should be taxed in India. We must look at the DTAA from the recipient's taxability perspective. DDT is paid ... basis of reasoning given above, it has been concluded that where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder, which attracts DDT referred to in Section 115-O of the Act, such DDT payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate

Braj Kishore Singh, Andheri East vs. Assessing Officer Int. Tax Ward 4(2)(1), International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

brief facts as culled out from the order of lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual having residential status as non-resident during the FY 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. It was observed from the departmental data base that

Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni, Margao vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 50/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 050/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni A-3/A-4, C.D. Neighbourhood, Swami Chinmayanand Marg, Gogoi, Salcete, Margao, Goa Pan : Dkzpk5732F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1072026383(1) Dt. 09/01/2025 Passed By Addl//Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Jaipur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Intimation Dt. 26/11/2021 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Asstt. Direction Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 90

considered the facts & circumstance of the case in the light of settled position of law. 3. We note that, the assessee is a non-resident individual who for the year under consideration filed his return of income belated on 31/03/2021 as against prescribed due date 31/07/2021 & extended due date 10/01/2021

Iqbal Ali Jaweed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 448/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessment year 2016-2017. ITA.No.447/Hyd./2024 – A.Y. 2016-2017 : 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a non-resident individual for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has resided in Saudi Arabia, as an employee working as Sr. Foreman (Civil Contracts) in Facilities Management ... submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute between the parties that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessment has been reopened u/sec.147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated

Iqbal Ali Jaweed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 447/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessment year 2016-2017. ITA.No.447/Hyd./2024 – A.Y. 2016-2017 : 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a non-resident individual for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has resided in Saudi Arabia, as an employee working as Sr. Foreman (Civil Contracts) in Facilities Management ... submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute between the parties that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessment has been reopened u/sec.147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated

Indu Bala Porwal, Udaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

ITA 173/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 250

creation of BWR Trust in pursuance of family settlement dated 23.08.1995. In terms of said family settlement, trust funds were later transferred by Non-Resident trustee to account name “Tera Panth”, wherein for KYC Compliance, Appellant KYC documents were submitted. The said account represents trust relationship only while holding ... including Bank Statements and Ledgers etc. to support the claim that the funds belonged to the BWR Trust, which is managed and controlled by non-resident trustees which was not at all considered by the Ld. AO and was termed as unreliable and not genuine without even conducting proper inquiry

Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 500/CHNY/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.500/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 Aban Singapore Pte Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Room No.8713, Bsnl Building, Tax, 4Th Floor, Bsnl Towers, Intl Tax-1(1), No.16, Greams Road, Chennai. Chennai [Pan: Aaqca2845Q]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N.Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 43BSection 44B

fund payment. The Ld.Counsel drew our attention to the following factual matrix of the case. It has been stated that the assessee company is non-resident company in India which has been incorporated in Singapore is engaged in the business of providing services and facilities relating to exploration and exploitation ... anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 41 and sections 43 and 43A, in the case of an assessee 30[, being a non-resident,] engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used

Zscaler, Inc., United States of America vs. DCIT, International Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 928/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Ccountant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Zscaler Inc., Vs Dcit, 120, Holger Way San Jose, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), California, Usa, Delhi. Usa 95134. Pan: Aaacz4350P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate; Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate; Ms Ankita Prakash, Advocate; & Shri Govind Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.10.2023 & 22.01.2025 Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

from e-commerce supply or services made or provided or facilitated by it- (i) to a person resident in India; or (ii) to a non-resident in the specified circumstances as referred to in sub- (ii) section (3); or (iii) to a person who buys such goods or services ... said case, the Indian entity involved was finalizing products sold by it in the capacity of a distributor as well by the non-resident entity therein, which is not the case herein. In any case, the above principles have been distinguished by this Tribunal in in the case of Siemens

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Spicejet Limited, New Delhi

In the results, both the appeals of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4597/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 250Section 40

provisions of DTAA shall apply to the extent they are beneficial. Under the DTAA the foremost consideration is whether the non-resident lessor has a permanent establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5 of the relevant. According to him, m leasing of an aircraft which is located in India

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Spicejet Limited, Gurgaon

In the results, both the appeals of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4595/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 250Section 40

provisions of DTAA shall apply to the extent they are beneficial. Under the DTAA the foremost consideration is whether the non-resident lessor has a permanent establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5 of the relevant. According to him, m leasing of an aircraft which is located in India

Trans World International Llc, Wilmington, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Civic Centre, Near Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case: The M/s Trans World International, Inc. (TWI Inc.) was a non-resident corporation established in Ohio, USA and was engaged in the business of production of theatrical and non- theatrical motion pictures and video tapes. For the year under consideration ... carrying on the business of licensing broadcasting rights with both residents as well as non-residents and entered into direct contracts with the broadcasters for the licensing of broadcasting rights. On 05.05.2014, the 'TWI Inc. merged with Iris Trans World International Inc. and post that the surviving entity converted itself

Trans World International Llc, Wilmington, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 1961/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

respectively. ITA No.1960/Del/2024 (AY 2013-14) 2. Brief facts of the case: The M/s Trans World International, Inc. (TWI Inc.) was a non-resident corporation established in Ohio, USA and was engaged in the business of production of theatrical and non- theatrical motion pictures and video tapes. For the year ... under consideration, TWI Inc. was carrying on the business of licensing broadcasting rights with both residents as well as non-residents and entered into direct contracts with the broadcasters for the licensing of broadcasting rights. On 05.05.2014, the 'TWI Inc. merged with Iris Trans World International Inc. and post that