“ non-resident ”

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.

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.

345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court

461

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT

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.

288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court

394

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.

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.

346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court

371

125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court

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.

270

39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court

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.

269

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

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.

239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court

243

376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court

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

241

ITA 7334/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

Weatherford Oil Tools M E Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 92D

including the reimbursement of service tax expenses incurred by assessee in the gross receipts and treating the royalty received from another non-resident as income of assessee thereby estimating 25% of the Gross revenue towards the same. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT

Anatole Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

details were found to be in order, and the share premium received from them was allowed. For other investors, no proof of creditworthiness or non-resident status was provided. The company was incorporated on 31.01.2012 but carried out no business activities until 31.03.2015. The AO questioned the rationale behind issuing ... investors namely Neha Joshi and Rashmi Verma were non-Investors. Accordingly, no additions were made by the AO of the amount received from such Non-Resident investors u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. However. AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, disr egarded the Valuation Report for valuation

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

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan: Aaaca 3012H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Dated 13.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Order Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.03.2024 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant :-2-:

Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

considering the fact that the assessee has deducted the withholding tax as per the Section 44BB(1) from the remittance made to non-resident service providers which is according to the provision of the Act. (B)The Ld.CIT(A) ought to consider the fact that the specific provision i.e., 44BB ... specifically excluded from the definition of royalty. (B) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the foreign remittance to non-residents are in the nature of rental charges on the equipment used for the drilling, exploration of oil and gas and same is covered in 44BB

Alok Joshi, Uttrakhand vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1247/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 10(34)Section 10(4)Section 10(4)(ii)Section 254(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57. Mumbai, erred in upholding the addition by the AO on account of interest income from Non-Resident External (NRE) bank account amounting to Rs.62,933/-, which is exempt u/s 10(4) of Income Tax Act. Ground No. 2 On the facts and circumstances ... additional evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963). The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is a non-resident Indian. The assessee is maintaining Non-Resident External Account (NRE). The assessee earned interest of Rs. 62,933/- which is claimed as exempt under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. Telekom Malaysia Behard, Malaysia

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2432/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Manju Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9

field of telecommunication and provisions governing royalty the act and DTAA? 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia. The Company is engaged in the business of providing telecommunication services. Proceedings under section ... initiated for the AY 2008-09 to AY 2012 13 in respect of non-deduction of taxes at source on payments made to its non-resident telecom operators for provision of interconnect and bandwidth charges. The said charges were considered as Royalties/ Fee for Technical Services both

Ajila Valiyapeediakal Abdulla, Kochi vs. ITO Non Corp 2(4), Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee insofar as the addition made u/s

ITA 757/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 69

assessee had furnished the confirmation letters from the mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The brother-in-law of the assessee is a non-resident Indian employed in Dubai. The another deposit was from the assessee’s mother-in-law who is residing in India. The assessee had contested

Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2977/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

ITA 2976/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

minus Rs.64,65,578/-]. However, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the view that dividend declared/distributed by the domestic company to the non-resident ITA Nos.2974 - 2977/Chny/2024 (AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 & 2020-21) M/s.Dormakaba India Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: shareholder(s) would attract Additional Income Tax [Tax on Distributed Profits ... under:- Conclusion: 83. For the reasons give above, we hold that where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder(s), ITA Nos.2974 - 2977/Chny/2024 (AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 & 2020-21) M/s.Dormakaba India Pvt. Ltd. :: 5 :: which attracts Additional Income

Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

ITA 2975/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

ITA 2974/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla