← 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

Ghanshyam Ramchandra Kriplani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn. Ward-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 566/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Ghanshyam Ramchandra The Ito, International Kriplani, 5, Netaji Society Vs Taxn., Ward-1 Nr. Jai Hind High School Ahmedabad. Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aycpk 3430 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271Section 69

terms of provisions of section 69 of the Act. 4. Orders of the authorities below record the fact that the assessee is a non-resident. No return of income was filed for the impugned year, and noting from the information available in the INSIGHT portal of the department that ... received in India and therefore, as per Sec. 5(2)(a) of the Act, which deals with the scope of income arising to a Non-Resident, the income of a Non-Resident received in India is taxable in India. This is subject to only condition that the assessee

Siemens Mobility Gmbh, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Tax), 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4713/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh a/w Bhavin
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A

basis as per the DTAA between India and Germany in the case of Siemens AG (supra) has held that “78. The assessee is a non-resident Company, incorporated in Germany, having taxable income in India. With regard to FTS and royalty is has shown income on receipt basis ... held that in the particular case, the credit entry to the account of the assessee non-resident in the books of Indian company amounted to receipt by the non-resident. Further, in the case of the assessee this issue has been settled by the Tribunal right from A.Yrs

Shell International Petroeum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5509/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3053/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3049/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty

Yash Ashitbhai Vashi, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1476/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1476/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Yash Ashitbhai Vashi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E/1, Pranav Apartment Ward-1, V/S. Shreyas Tekra International Taxation Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380 014 Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aiipv 9386 Q (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26 /02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 270A(9)Section 54Section 54B

written submission before us, we note that the assessee is assessed by the Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, and his residential status is Non-Resident. The CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the AO through the ITBA system, but the AO failed to submit any response

Dhanushkodi Harideertham, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Intl Taxnl Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 214/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

Opg Power Generation Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 1090/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1088/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V.Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 172Section 195Section 40Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

argued that section 5(1) of the act is not applicable in this case as the income was neither received nor accrued to the non-resident recipients. The Ld. AO held that provisions of section 5(2) are attracted in assessee’s case. It was concluded that in the case ... submissions. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that section 172 of the Act is an independent code and does not applies to non-resident shipping companies outside India. The Ld. Counsel had also argued that it’s case is covered by CBDT circular No.723 of 1995 which mandates

Opg Power Generation Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 1089/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1088/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V.Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 172Section 195Section 40Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

argued that section 5(1) of the act is not applicable in this case as the income was neither received nor accrued to the non-resident recipients. The Ld. AO held that provisions of section 5(2) are attracted in assessee’s case. It was concluded that in the case ... submissions. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that section 172 of the Act is an independent code and does not applies to non-resident shipping companies outside India. The Ld. Counsel had also argued that it’s case is covered by CBDT circular No.723 of 1995 which mandates

Opg Power Generation Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 1088/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1088/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V.Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 172Section 195Section 40Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

argued that section 5(1) of the act is not applicable in this case as the income was neither received nor accrued to the non-resident recipients. The Ld. AO held that provisions of section 5(2) are attracted in assessee’s case. It was concluded that in the case ... submissions. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that section 172 of the Act is an independent code and does not applies to non-resident shipping companies outside India. The Ld. Counsel had also argued that it’s case is covered by CBDT circular No.723 of 1995 which mandates

Visteon Corporation, Michigan vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1347/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1347/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Visteon Corporation Dcit बनाम/ Grace Lake Corporation Centre, International Taxation Van Buren Township Circle-2(2), Vs. Michigan – 48111 Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aadcv-5660-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Jyotsna Sivakumar (Advocate) & Shri Ajay Vohra (Senior Advocate) – Ld. Ars (Through Virtual Mode ) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Jyotsna Sivakumar (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vii)

included services’ as defined under Article 12 of India US DTAA and hence, not taxable in India. 10.1 Admittedly, the assessee is a non-resident and having no PE in India. We have gone through the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 640/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 23.07.2021 declaring Nil income. The assessee is a non-resident company and wholly owned subsidiary of Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. (PBIPL). In the course of search at Mumbai Office of PBIPL, it was found that the said

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 639/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 23.07.2021 declaring Nil income. The assessee is a non-resident company and wholly owned subsidiary of Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. (PBIPL). In the course of search at Mumbai Office of PBIPL, it was found that the said

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 23.07.2021 declaring Nil income. The assessee is a non-resident company and wholly owned subsidiary of Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. (PBIPL). In the course of search at Mumbai Office of PBIPL, it was found that the said

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 637/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 23.07.2021 declaring Nil income. The assessee is a non-resident company and wholly owned subsidiary of Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. (PBIPL). In the course of search at Mumbai Office of PBIPL, it was found that the said

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 636/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 23.07.2021 declaring Nil income. The assessee is a non-resident company and wholly owned subsidiary of Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. (PBIPL). In the course of search at Mumbai Office of PBIPL, it was found that the said

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 635/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 23.07.2021 declaring Nil income. The assessee is a non-resident company and wholly owned subsidiary of Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. (PBIPL). In the course of search at Mumbai Office of PBIPL, it was found that the said

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Maharastra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 634/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 23.07.2021 declaring Nil income. The assessee is a non-resident company and wholly owned subsidiary of Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. (PBIPL). In the course of search at Mumbai Office of PBIPL, it was found that the said

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Maharastra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B
Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 23.07.2021 declaring Nil income. The assessee is a non-resident company and wholly owned subsidiary of Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. (PBIPL). In the course of search at Mumbai Office of PBIPL, it was found that the said

Jaiprakash L. Singh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1301/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250

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