“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

Chand Beebi, Palakkad vs. DCIT, Circle Int.Tax, Kochi

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

ITA 1057/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pathmanathn K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148

hereinafter "the Act") dated 30.01.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a non-resident individual. No regular return of income for AY 2018-19 was filed. The DCIT (International Taxation), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information

Janardhan Kapur, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4754/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Janardhan Kapur, Vs Ito, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Ward-29(1), Chartered Accountants, Delhi. C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aojpk8128G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Fca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.09.2024 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/2018-19/10092978 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 23.09.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That Amongst Other Grounds On Merits The Assessee Has Raised Ground No.2. This Ground Was Not Raised Before The Cit(A). However, Before Us, A Separate Application Is Moved Requesting To Raise This As An Additional Ground. Considering That The Ground No. 2 Questions The Assumption Of Jurisdiction To Pass Final Assessment Order & Can Be Decided On The Basis Of Admitted Facts, The Same Is Admitted. 3. The Ground No.2 As Raised Is Reproduced Below:- “That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Was Without Jurisdiction, Null & Void Since No Prior Draft Assessment Order As Required Under Section 144C(1) Was Passed & Provided To The Appellant Being A Non- Resident & “Eligible Assessee” As Per Section 144C(15)(B)(Ii) Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)(b)

from the assessment order itself it can be observed that the appellant is an individual who was assessed in the status of non-resident and, therefore, falls in the definition of ‘eligible assessee’ as per section 144C(1) r.w.s. 144(15)(b)(ii) of the Act and, thus ... taxmann.com 55, has decided a bunch of cases including the case of Aditya Talwar which was also a case of a non-resident individual and where also without issuing draft assessment order as per the mandate of section 144C of the Act, the AO had proceeded to pass the final

Shri Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Gupta, Gandhidham vs. The ITO- International Taxation, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 269/RJT/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 172Section 172(4)Section 172(5)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

order is framed by the assessing officer without following the statutory provisions of section 144C of the Act, which also apply to assessments of non-residents. The provisions of section 144C of the Act, is reproduced below (to the extent applicable for our analysis): “Reference to dispute resolution panel. 144C ... although apparently, assessing officer had no powers to do so, without following section 144C procedure, when the assessee is an agent of non-resident/foreign company. The assessment orders passed without following statutory provisions such as notice, approval are held to be without jurisdiction, hence bad in law, null

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

Non- Deduction of TDS on Testing Charges 37. During the relevant previous year, the assessee made a payment of Rs.3,99,455/- to a non-resident entity towards testing charges. The payment was made in foreign currency to a foreign laboratory for testing services conducted outside India ... assessee for its business in India, the payment constituted income deemed to accrue or arise in India in the hands of the non-resident recipient. Accordingly, in the absence of deduction of tax at source, the AO disallowed the said amount under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Before

Sohan Lal Singla, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds

ITA 711/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraasian Honda Motor Co. Vs. Dcit, Ddit/Adit Ltd., No.14, Sarasin (International Tax) Building, Surasak Road, Room No. 602, 6Th Floor, Khwaeng, Silom Khet Aayakar Bhawan, A-2D, Bangrak, Bangkok Sector 24, Gautam Budh Metropolis, Nagar, Noida, Thailand, 10500 Uttar Pradesh – 201307 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaica2531P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

under Section 144C(5) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts, leading to instant appeal are that, the assessee is a non-resident company and is incorporated under the laws of Thailand is engaged in the business of sale of cars, spare parts etc. It is responsible for exporting

DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-I, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Dehradun

ITA 6714/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

support its contention. 5.5 Combined effect of the provisions of sections, 44BB, 44DA and 115A is that if the income nf a non-resident is in the nature of fee for technical services, it shall be taxable ITA Nos. 6026, 6171 & 6714/Del./2017 6 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. under ... below: “8. A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions' of the Act goes to show that under Section 44BB(1) in case of a non-resident providing services or facilities in connection with or supplying plant and machinery used or to be used in prospecting, extraction or production of mineral

DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-I, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Dehradun

ITA 6171/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun

ITA 6026/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 1, Panvel

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

ITA 2405/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 2(14)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

assessee HARESHKUMAR DUNGARMAL JAIN Address of the assessee 39 SHIVAJI PARK, E WARD NEAR CBS KOLHAPUR 416003, Maharashtra India Resident Not Ordinarily Resident Non-Resident Date of order 13/04/2022 Specified authority approval Name PCIT, Pune-1 Reference No. 100000029101926 Date Order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income

Monish Ranjan Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

limitation by 65 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The assessee is a non-resident and does not have regular place of residence in India. His tax affairs are too small and does not require regular handling

Shri. Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2060/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024 & SP 67/Bang/2024 Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2059/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024 & SP 67/Bang/2024 Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Sri Chaitanya Educational Committe, Vijayawada

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

ITA 325/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

facts with regard to super profit earned by two companies from the services and also purpose of earning above profit to raise funds from non-resident investors. From the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer, it is undisputedly clear that, the service agreement with above named Trust

Godfrey Lloyd Vaz, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5304/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pranab Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj

Section 250Section 270A

appellant, therefore, prays that the appeal may be admitted, and orders may be passed rendering justice to the appellant.” 2. The assessee is a non-resident individual and filed the return of income for AY 2020-21 on 10.01.2021 declaring a total income of Nil. The assessee's case

Akhil Kumar, Bhopal vs. ITO (It & Tp), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 35/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2012-13 Akhil Kumar Ito (It & Tp) C-1/110, Area Colony, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Baqpk6099G Assessee By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

appeal has come up before us for hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual was a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) during the relevant Page 2 of 5 Akhil Kumar ITA No. 35/Ind/2020 – AY 2012-13 year. For AY 2012-13 under consideration

Pralhad Vasantrao Mulick, Pune, Maharashtra vs. The ITO, (It) Ward-3, Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

delete or substitute all or any of the above grounds of appeal." Brief facts of the case : 2. In this case, assessee is a Non-Resident during the period. Assessee had not filed Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16 under section 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer(AO) received ... both the parties and perused the records. It is an admitted fact by the ITO(International Taxation), Ward-3, Pune that Assessee is a Non-Resident during the relevant period. The ITO has also admitted in the Remand Report that the entire payment has been made through Standard Chartered Bank

Partha Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Suri, Birbhum

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2042/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 5(2)

affirming the assessment order wherein the AO has made an addition by ignoring the fact that the assessee is a non-resident and not liable to be taxed in India. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee was a non-resident during the relevant assessment year ... employed with IMB India Private Limited and rendering services abroad. The assessee filed the return of income as non-resident, a copy of which is available in paper book page no. 1 to 8. However, the ld. AO treated the residential status as resident, framed the assessment accordingly

Partha Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Suri, Birbhum

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2041/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 5(2)

ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi vs. River Builders (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 9446/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 9446/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Acit, Vs M/S River Builders Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), C-59, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecr2730H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi’S In Case No. 10415/410/Cit(A)-7/Del/2018-19 Dated 06.09.2019, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Naveen

Lakshmi Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6607/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Bleshri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) Lakshmi Rao Ito – Ward – 22(1)(4) (Now Ito-Ward-22(1)(1) A3102 Lodhabellissimo Piramal Chambers Off: N.M. Joshi Marg Vs Mumbai – 400012 Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400013 Maharashtra Maharashtra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271

Income Tax Act, 1961 (inshort “Act”) in 2018 i.e. after six years from relevant Financial Year. During the re-assessment period, the assessee was Non-Resident Indian (NRI). Thus, no notice either under section 148 of the Act or any other notice was received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer