← 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

Somnath Bondopadhaya, Kolkata vs. The ITO, Ward-2, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 458/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 116BSection 144CSection 148Section 148ASection 234Section 285BSection 69A

without jurisdiction in as much as that the assessee is not an eligible assessee for assessment year under consideration in as much as that non-resident as eligible assessee has been substituted in section 144C with effect from 01/04/2020 being not applicable to A.Y. 2018-19. Ground No.3: The learned ... Rs.10,000. Ground No.11: The appellant craves, leave to add, alter and or modify any grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee is a non-resident and had not filed return of income for the year under consideration. After receiving information and details, the Revenue observed that the assessee made financial

Infinity Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 449/PAT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

appeal after hearing both the sides. 3. The sole issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the assessee was a non-resident during the Financial Year (FY) 2008-09 relevant to Assessment I.T.A. No.: 449/PAT/2024 Infinity Kumar, AY : 2009-10 Year (AY) 2009-10 and whether the income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Saipem India Projects Private Limited, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2319/CHNY/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2264/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2319/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 4, Fourth Lane Yaralagadda Towers Chennai. Off Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaaci-7915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017- 18 & 2018-19 Have Identical Facts & Issues. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 [Cit(A)] On 28-06- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

finally been held in assessee’s case that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source on payments made to non-resident towards software support charges and consequently, expenses could not be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In subsequent decision for AY 2016- 17 dated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Saipem India Projects Private Limited, Kanchipuram

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2264/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2264/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2319/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 4, Fourth Lane Yaralagadda Towers Chennai. Off Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaaci-7915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017- 18 & 2018-19 Have Identical Facts & Issues. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 [Cit(A)] On 28-06- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

finally been held in assessee’s case that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source on payments made to non-resident towards software support charges and consequently, expenses could not be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In subsequent decision for AY 2016- 17 dated

Doreguling Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited, Mundgod vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

ITA 1727/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy – IRS
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

alien to the local language and the culture of India. The members carried on their activities inside the settlement area. The members are all non-residents of India living in the refugee camp established under the Registration of Foreigners Rule 1939. Because the members of the society are all non

Sunku Satyanarayan Sanajy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1495/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201(1)Section 40

para 4.3.2 he held that in the absence of any Article dealing with fees for technical services under the DTAA, income of the non-resident is exigible to tax under the provisions of domestic law. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 6. Assessee, aggrieved with the appellate order

Leman Diversified Fund, Mumbai vs. Asssistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2732/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68

appellant was not questioned.” 2. We will first consider the appeal for AY 2013-14 for the purpose of adjudication. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in Mauritius and registered as Foreign Portfolio Investor (FTI) under Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The assessee filed the return

Leman Diversified Fund, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation) Circle 3(1)(2), Mumabi

ITA 2710/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68

appellant was not questioned.” 2. We will first consider the appeal for AY 2013-14 for the purpose of adjudication. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in Mauritius and registered as Foreign Portfolio Investor (FTI) under Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The assessee filed the return

ITO(It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Subramania Sreenivasan Ganeshnath, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of paragraph 8 and 9 above

ITA 2439/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren CFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Savant
Section 142(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

satisfactory to hold that such sum is credited into books of account.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a non-resident individual working in Muscat and deriving salary income. During the relevant previous year, the Assessee filed return of income on 19/05/2021 declaring income

Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation) 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed in the

ITA 4630/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Ms. Padmavathy S, A.M.

Section 9(1)(vii)

Rs.16,93,17,904/- received on account of additional services as Fee for Technical Services (FTS). 3. Briefly, facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated under the laws of Singapore and is a tax resident of Singapore. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed

Murex Southeast Asia Pvt Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (Int Taxation) 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2417/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Ms. Padmavathy S, A.M. A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2021-22 Murex Southeast Asia Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of # 19-01, 10 Marina Boulevard, Income Tax Marina Bay Financial Centre, International Tax Vs. Tower 2, Singapore 018983 3(2)(2), Mumbai, Case Of Address 16Th Floor, Air India 503, Avior, Nrimal Galaxy, Building, Nariman Point, Opp Johnson & Johnson, Lbs Mumbai 400021 Marg Mulund West, Mumbai 400080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaicm 4006F Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain/Ms. Mitali Pakle & Ms. Shreya Sejpal Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2025

Section 9(1)(vii)

Rs.16,93,17,904/- received on account of additional services as Fee for Technical Services (FTS). 3. Briefly, facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated under the laws of Singapore and is a tax resident of Singapore. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed

Seema Mishra, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2083/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandrain Ita No. 2083/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ravi Manjeri Anantaraman, Vs. Dcit, 3604, Meadowlark Road, Circle International Roanoke, Virginina, Usa Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Anapa4202H

For Appellant: Ms. Jasmin Amabadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 147Section 69

Jasmin Amabadvala, Adv, appearing on behalf of the assessee narrating facts of the case submitted that the assessee is a non-resident. Wife of the assessee Ms. Hutoxi Keki Hathi had purchased Mutual Funds aggregating to Rs. 54 lakhs. The source of making such investment was from the bank account

Lion Services Ltd., Delhi vs. Addl JCIT, Ludhiyana

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1711/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

decision in the case of DIT vs. Mitsubishi Corporation, 438 ITR 174 (SC), stated that interest u/s. 234B is not applicable to non-residents in AY 2011-12. Charging of interest u/s. 234B, 234C and 234D is mandatory and consequential. The AO shall decide chargeability of interest u/s.234B

Anil Dhansukhlal, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Taxation) Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/RJT/2024[A Y 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.68/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2018-19) Anil Dhansukhlal Income Tax Officer बनाम Vakhat Niwas 10, Divan Para (Int.Txn), Gandhidham, Vs. Rajkot -360 001 Amruta Estate Building, Jheelwas, Sadar, Rajkot- 360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajypd6405F "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 139Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

Counsel for the assessee, submitted the paper book, before the Bench, containing pages 1 to 243 and stated that assessee under consideration is a non-resident and who purchased immovable property in India on 25.02.2010, vide allotment letter issued by the Oberoi Realty Ltd, for a consideration of Rs.2 ... other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submitted that the appeal filed by assessee is in a non-resident status and assessee has not filed the appropriate affidavit to the effect to appoint any person in India to argue his case. Besides the genuineness

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Jay Dushyant Patel, Vadodara

In the result, we find that Ld

ITA 981/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Virat Bhavsar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virat Bhavsar, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90

After completing his graduation in India, he shifted to United States and completed his higher studies and started business in USA. The assessee was Non-Resident Indian till 2018-19. In the year 2017, due to personal reason the assessee decide to gradually shift to India and started living

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Jay Dushyant Patel, Vadodara

In the result, we find that Ld

ITA 980/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Virat Bhavsar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virat Bhavsar, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90

After completing his graduation in India, he shifted to United States and completed his higher studies and started business in USA. The assessee was Non-Resident Indian till 2018-19. In the year 2017, due to personal reason the assessee decide to gradually shift to India and started living

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4348/MUM/2024[2003 04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT,CC-8(2) Vs. Late Shri Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani the Base Note and claimed that assessee was a non-resident and was chargeable to tax only on income which accrues or arises in India. Whereas in the case of the assessee it was explained

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4347/MUM/2024[2004 05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT,CC-8(2) Vs. Late Shri Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani the Base Note and claimed that assessee was a non-resident and was chargeable to tax only on income which accrues or arises in India. Whereas in the case of the assessee it was explained

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4346/MUM/2024[2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT,CC-8(2) Vs. Late Shri Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani the Base Note and claimed that assessee was a non-resident and was chargeable to tax only on income which accrues or arises in India. Whereas in the case of the assessee it was explained

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4345/MUM/2024[2006 07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT,CC-8(2) Vs. Late Shri Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani the Base Note and claimed that assessee was a non-resident and was chargeable to tax only on income which accrues or arises in India. Whereas in the case of the assessee it was explained