non-resident — 3,736 case laws

DCIT(It), Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. A1 Telekom Austria Aktiengesellschaft, Austria

In the result, the apepal filed by the ld

ITA 2128/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 201Section 9

field of telecommunication and provisions governing royalty in the act and DTAA?” 3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is a non-resident telecom operator based in Austria, who has received a payment of Rs.208,42,638 from an Indian entity Vodafone South Ltd. As per proceedings

Eapen George, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward International Taxation 1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2126/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 69

justified in treating 1NR 1,34,69,453/- as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act failing to recognize that the appellant, as a non-resident, made these investments from foreign income sources. 9. The learned DRP erred in dismissing the objections of the petitioner solely on the basis that ... allowed and Justice rendered.” IT(IT)A No.2126/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 11 3. Brief facts of the case shows that that assessee is a non-resident individual, case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 29/3/2023

Sumo Logic, Inc., Usa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3350/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Assessment Year : 2021-22 Sumo Logic, Inc. Vs. Acit, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, 305 Main Street, Delhi. Redwood City, California, Foreign, United States. C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Tower-B, 7Th Floor, Building 10, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon-122002. (Pan: Abecs 9368 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. & Shri Aditya Rathore, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Vijay B Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2024 Date Of Order : 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. The Captioned Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

sake of brevity, we reproduce the facts and findings of the Bench as under: “4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in United States of America (USA) and a tax resident of USA. As stated, the assessee operates a global online learning platform

Pritpal Singh Basan, Jharkhand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeal), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 957/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 6(6)

treated the salary as taxable in India. The assessee’s contention was that the salary income in foreign exchange to a non-resident assessee whose salary is accrued/ received outside India and remitted to India is to be treated as foreign income of the assessee which is not taxable ... However, a perusal of the Circular No. 13/2017 dated 11.04.2017, which is clarificatory in nature, shows that the salary accrued to a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on a foreign ship shall not be included in the total income merely because the said salary has been credited

Pritpal Singh Basan, Jamshedpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1003/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 6(6)

treated the salary as taxable in India. The assessee’s contention was that the salary income in foreign exchange to a non-resident assessee whose salary is accrued/ received outside India and remitted to India is to be treated as foreign income of the assessee which is not taxable ... However, a perusal of the Circular No. 13/2017 dated 11.04.2017, which is clarificatory in nature, shows that the salary accrued to a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on a foreign ship shall not be included in the total income merely because the said salary has been credited

M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

assessee has raised the additional ground before the CIT(A) that the rate of Dividend Distribution tax Paid on dividend paid to the Non-resident shareholders should be restricted as per the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance agreement (DTAA). In this regard, the provision of sub-section 4 of section ... owner of the Dividend is a resident in France, the tax so charged shall not exceed specified percent. The first condition is that the non-resident in France should be taxed in India. We have to look 16 at the DTAA from the recipients taxability perspective. DDT is paid

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani Partner, Abc Sales Corporation, Taliparamba vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 837/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250