“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

DCIT-Central Charge-8(3), Mumbai vs. Estate of Late Shri Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta- Executor Shri Dilip Ramniklal Mehta, Mumbai

ITA 4220/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Shah & Shri P P BhandariFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 69A

Mehta and his wife had initially moved to Belgium in the year 1973 and are presently residing in Dubai. Shri Dilip Mehta is a non-resident Indian (NRI). 3. A search and seizure action was carried under Section 132 of the Act at the business premises of the assessee ... submitted that in accordance with the provisions under Section 168 r.w.s. 6 of Income-tax Act, 1961 the appellant is a "non-resident" as claimed in the return of income. The appellant has furnished all details as available to establish the status of the "Estate" as non- resident

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hira Technologies Private Limited, Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5028/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhriassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.126, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Hira Technologies Private Limited Plot No.1, Part-Ii, Khed City Taluka Khed, Rajgurunagar Pune, Dta Village, ……………. Respondent Khanesar, Pune – 410505 Pan: Aabch2291N

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SanghviFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

were holding a USA passport and were a resident of Dubai, UAE. As per the assessee, since the shares were issued to the non-residents, the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”) were complied with and the transaction of issue of shares was reported to the Reserve Bank

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax vs. Sumitra Rajeshbhai Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2459/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent ... such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Explanation.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance

Ms Bina Suresh Gidwani, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the alternative submission raised

ITA 903/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 10

dated 27/07/2023 as well as 17/07/2023 which is scanned and reproduced as under: “2. Facts of the Case: The status of the assessee was non-resident and not filed the return of income during A.Y. 2014-15. Accordingly, the case was reopened on the basis of information received from

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2234/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

10sTA it is referred as under: “(c) corporates guarantee means explicit corporate guarantee extended by a company to its wholly owned subsidiary being a non-resident in respect of any short term or long term borrowing.” 31. The assessee has also referred the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co.Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2232/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2026/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Siemens, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3109/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Scindia House, Balard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai – 400038 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S M/S. Siemens Aktiengensellschaft, C/O, Bsr & Co. Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, M.N. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400038, Maharashtra Pan – Aabcs8516K

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from the record are: The assessee is a non-resident company and is a tax resident of Germany. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2008, declaring a total income of Rs.84

Rajendra Maganbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara

ITA 106/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar S.V. Road, Malad West Mumbai - 400 064 Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N बनाम / V/S. The Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Revenue By : Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2015-16 & Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Under Section 147 R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]. The Core Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Credits In The Assessee'S Non- Resident External (Nre) Bank Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Nos.105 & 106/Ahd/2023 Rajendra Manganbhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 2 Facts of the case: 2. The assessee is a Non-Resident Indian and citizen of UK. The assessee had not filed his returns of income for both the assessment years under consideration. On the basis ... Filing of return in response to Notice u/s 148 Returned Income Key Information from ITBA System - Investments in Mutual Funds TDS Return Payments to Non-Residents - Time Deposit with Banking Co. - Credit Card Payments: Addition Proposed by AO in Draft order Additions Directed by DRP (Unexplained NRE Credits) Order

Rajendra Maganbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara

ITA 105/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar Income Tax, Circle V/S. S.V. Road, Malad West International Taxation, Mumbai – 400 064 Vadodara Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2015-16 & Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]. The Core Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Credits In The Assessee’S Non- Resident External (Nre) Bank Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Nos.105 & 106/Ahd/2023 Rajendra Manganbhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 2 Facts of the case: 2. The assessee is a Non-Resident Indian and citizen of UK. The assessee had not filed his returns of income for both the assessment years under consideration. On the basis ... Mutual Funds Rs. 5,62,67,313/- Rs. 14,36,26,449/- - TDS Return Payments to Rs. 9,50,243/- Rs. 10,47,988/- Non-Residents - Time Deposit with Banking Rs. 11,76,46,084/- NIL Co. - Credit Card Payments: Rs. 3,04,662/- Rs. 3,96,515/- Addition Proposed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation) Circle-2(2) Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. U L India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 29/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 250

Assistant of Income-tax, International taxation Circle — 2(2), Bengaluru ('Learned AO') that the payments towards testing charges and management fees, to the non-resident group entities ('Payees') fall under the ambit of Fees for Technical Services/Fees for Included Services ('FTS/FIS') as per the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement of India ... order to rebut the observations of the AO has vehemently argued that the test results of the sub-contracting services provided by the non-resident entities do not enable the appellant to carry out the exact activities in India subsequently and on each occasion the appellant engages requests the non

M/S. Ul India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1136/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 250

DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kuber Sucurities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 1412/DEL/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 250

Appellant with respect additional claim of the to restrict the levy of the dividend distribution tax ("DDT") on dividend declared and paid to its non-resident shareholders in accordance with Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (Tax Treaty’) between India and USA by holding that fresh claim making first time in appellate ... rejecting the claim of the appellant in respect of levy of the dividend distribution tax ("DDT") on dividend declared and paid to its non-resident shareholders in accordance with the Tax Treaty between India and USA and upheld the Page | 2 ITA No.1412/Del/2023 applicability of section

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Jay Chemicals Idndustries Ltd, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1916/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40

Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting addition of Rs.4,43,18,315/- an account of disallowance of commission paid to non-residents, without appreciating the facts of the case?" 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld.CIT(A) was justified

Jay Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1740/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40

Karthick Chilaka, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 947/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

Section 263Section 28

araer atiehe aftiern, ‘sy =raic, tag! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI ft at ast, Soret Us

Aakash Deep Sethi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - International Tax - 4(2)(1), Bandra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6988/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriaakash Deep Sethi V/S. Ito-International Tax- 66/5/3, 3 Sector, 5 बनाम 4(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Neelkamal Building, Cbd Bandra Kurla Complex, Belapur, Bandra, Maharashtra-400614 Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Efips1860F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

assessee’s explanation that the said amount was invested by his father. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident during the year under consideration. The assessee had not filed its return of income for AY 2018-19. However, it was noticed from

Loparex Holding Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4813/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 234DSection 270ASection 274

read with section 270A of the Act, for misreporting of income.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated as per the laws of Netherlands and of wholly-owned subsidiary of Loparex International BV, Netherlands. It filed its return of income

Sanjeev Kumar Kathuria, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

deemed cost of acquisition. [Para 11] Where the gains are long term capital gains (other than long term capital gains arising to a non-resident from the transfer of shares or debentures of an Indian Company), then, as per the second proviso to section 48 of the Act, the capital