← 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

Acitltu-2, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 945/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

discussed the said issue in para 17(b) at pages 23 to 26 of the assessment order. Since the payment of overseas commission to non-resident agents is deemed to accrue and arise in India and is taxable under the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer held that the overseas

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 1 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 895/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

discussed the said issue in para 17(b) at pages 23 to 26 of the assessment order. Since the payment of overseas commission to non-resident agents is deemed to accrue and arise in India and is taxable under the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer held that the overseas

Chandini Duvvuri, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1855/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1842/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Chandini Duvvuri, Vs. Ito (Int. Taxation)-1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aympd9716A (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1855/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Chandini Duvvuri, Vs. Ito (Int. Taxation)-1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aympd9716A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siva Charan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, Dated 04/09/2025 & 08/09/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Chandini Duvvuri Vs. Ito (Int. Taxn) Act”), Dated 15/05/2024 & 27/05/2025 For Ay 2016-17 & Ay 2017- 18, Respectively. As A Common Issue Is Involved In The Captioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 In Ita No.1842/Hyd/2025 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri Siva Charan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69

kind prior permission from Hon'ble Tribunal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee who during the subject was a non-resident had as per the information Chandini Duvvuri vs. ITO (Int. Taxn) flagged in Risk Management Strategy (RMS) had though during the year under consideration

Chandini Duvvuri, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1842/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1842/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Chandini Duvvuri, Vs. Ito (Int. Taxation)-1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aympd9716A (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1855/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Chandini Duvvuri, Vs. Ito (Int. Taxation)-1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aympd9716A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siva Charan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, Dated 04/09/2025 & 08/09/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Chandini Duvvuri Vs. Ito (Int. Taxn) Act”), Dated 15/05/2024 & 27/05/2025 For Ay 2016-17 & Ay 2017- 18, Respectively. As A Common Issue Is Involved In The Captioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 In Ita No.1842/Hyd/2025 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri Siva Charan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69

kind prior permission from Hon'ble Tribunal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee who during the subject was a non-resident had as per the information Chandini Duvvuri vs. ITO (Int. Taxn) flagged in Risk Management Strategy (RMS) had though during the year under consideration