← 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

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2075/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2074/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2068/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2067/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2066/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2065/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2064/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2063/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2062/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2061/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2060/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2059/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2058/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further

Tweezerman India Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2057/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (1) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2057/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & (2) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & (3) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2059/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & (4) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2060/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & (5) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2061/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & (6) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2062/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & (7) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2063/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & (8) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2064/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & (9) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2065/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri P. Lalith Kumar & Mehul (CAs) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri S. Sundar Rajan (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115Section 237Section 250Section 90

erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section ... been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further