← 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

Sajjid Amir Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals of revenue are dismissed and two appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 6546/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133Section 133ASection 195(2)Section 40Section 68

erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,31,78,638/- made under section 40(a)(i) in respect of commission paid to a non-resident without deduction of tax at source ignoring that the assessee had not obtained any certificate u/s 195(2) and had failed to establish that ... Form 15CB on remittances. The Assessing Officer has made disallowances u/s 40(a)(i) only for the reason that M/s Ricami Giuma is non-resident. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering the entire facts has held that the M/s Ricami Giuma is resident of Italy,with no permanent establishments

The ACIT (Inta. Taxa.), Vadodara vs. Shri Chandubhai Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

ITA 189/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.189/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Acit (Inta.Taxa. Shri Chandubhai Raojibhai बनाम/ Race Course Circle Patel V/S. Vadodara – 390 007 42-B, Siddartha, Nepeansea Road Mumbai – 400 036 (Maharashtra) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aqvpp 3868 Q (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

evidences whatsoever were produced for the expenses claimed to have been incurred for the purpose of business. 1.(vii) the assessee, who is a non-resident, has managed to construct an entire building without being present in India and without even filing any return of income in India ... evidences whatsoever were produced for the expenses claimed to have been incurred for the purpose of business. 2. (vii) the assessee, who is a non-resident, has managed to construct an entire building without being present in India and without even filing any return of income in India

Sai Pragathi Estates & Constructions Pvt Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1627/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1627/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Sai Pragathi Estates & The Income Tax Officer- Constructions Pvt. [Int.Taxn]-1, Hyderabad Vs. Limited, Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004. Pin – 500 029. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aadcs4150P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri A Harish, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri A Harish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 161Section 163Section 163(1)(c)Section 163(1)(e)

Vijay Tiles & Cement Products, a partnership firm represented by its partners. Out of the 05 partners, one partner Smt. Anitha Chalasani is a Non-Resident Indian [in short “NRI”] and was represented by her father and GPA Holder Sri Poorna Chandra Rao who is also a partner in the said ... perusal of the aforesaid sub-section (2) of the said section clearly states that no person shall be treated as the agent of a non-resident unless he has had an opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer as to his liability to be treated as such

Amit Narayan Karkera, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7350/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 69

substantive addition made in the ex parte reassessment order. 2. The factual background, as emerging from the record, reveals that the assessee is a non-resident Indian who has been residing and employed in the United States of America since January 2006. The assessment order, however, incorrectly records his residential ... never effectively served with the notice issued under section 148, nor was he made aware of any such proceedings, as he was a non-resident residing in the United States and had no knowledge of communications allegedly sent through the Income-tax Business Application (ITBA) portal

Sushma Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 6248/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

response, the assessee filed her return declaring NIL income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 22.01.2021. The assessee had claimed her residential status as ‘Non-resident’ in the return. Ld. AO noticed that the TDS was deducted in the case of the assessee by M/s. SBL Pvt. Ltd. by treating ... status of the assessee was shown as ‘Resident’. But in the income tax return filed on 22.01.2021, the assessee has shown her status as non-resident. After obtaining information regarding arrival and departure of the assessee from India, from the Competent Authority, Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s claim

Sushma Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 6247/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

response, the assessee filed her return declaring NIL income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 22.01.2021. The assessee had claimed her residential status as ‘Non-resident’ in the return. Ld. AO noticed that the TDS was deducted in the case of the assessee by M/s. SBL Pvt. Ltd. by treating ... status of the assessee was shown as ‘Resident’. But in the income tax return filed on 22.01.2021, the assessee has shown her status as non-resident. After obtaining information regarding arrival and departure of the assessee from India, from the Competent Authority, Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s claim

Sushma Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 6246/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

response, the assessee filed her return declaring NIL income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 22.01.2021. The assessee had claimed her residential status as ‘Non-resident’ in the return. Ld. AO noticed that the TDS was deducted in the case of the assessee by M/s. SBL Pvt. Ltd. by treating ... status of the assessee was shown as ‘Resident’. But in the income tax return filed on 22.01.2021, the assessee has shown her status as non-resident. After obtaining information regarding arrival and departure of the assessee from India, from the Competent Authority, Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s claim

Sushma Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 6245/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

response, the assessee filed her return declaring NIL income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 22.01.2021. The assessee had claimed her residential status as ‘Non-resident’ in the return. Ld. AO noticed that the TDS was deducted in the case of the assessee by M/s. SBL Pvt. Ltd. by treating ... status of the assessee was shown as ‘Resident’. But in the income tax return filed on 22.01.2021, the assessee has shown her status as non-resident. After obtaining information regarding arrival and departure of the assessee from India, from the Competent Authority, Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s claim

Sushma Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 6244/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

response, the assessee filed her return declaring NIL income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 22.01.2021. The assessee had claimed her residential status as ‘Non-resident’ in the return. Ld. AO noticed that the TDS was deducted in the case of the assessee by M/s. SBL Pvt. Ltd. by treating ... status of the assessee was shown as ‘Resident’. But in the income tax return filed on 22.01.2021, the assessee has shown her status as non-resident. After obtaining information regarding arrival and departure of the assessee from India, from the Competent Authority, Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s claim

Mr. Abhishek Dixit, Gurugram vs. DDIT/ADIT( in Tax.), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 151

response to the said notice, the assessee had filed return of Income on 05/05/2021 stating that his residential status was that of a non-resident status and declared a gross total income of Nil which includes interest income of Rs. 1,66,493/- declared under the head income from other

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Fis Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2405/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Reema Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92B(2)Section 92C

Aggregate value of total employee cost in comparison to Aggregate value of international transactions as per books of accounts; Large outward remittances to a non-resident not being a company or to a foreign company; Large value of international transactions in services including transactions u/s 92B(2); Large value

Sunil Ambalavelil Raju, Dakshina Kannada vs. ITO, Ward - 60(5), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1123/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 1123/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sunil Ambalavelil Raju, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ambalavelil House, Konaalu Post, 574 Ward-60(5), 229, Kadaba Taluk, Dakshina New Delhi Kannada, Karnataka-574229 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahipr1912M Assessee By : Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)-43, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024–25/1071769877(1) Dated 01.01.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

could not pinpoint even a single cash deposit in assessee’s NRE savings account maintained in his name being a 3 Sunil Ambalavelil Raju non-resident. Case law Nitin Mavji Vekariya Vs. ITO (2024) 461 ITR 18 (Guj.) holds that such investments made from a non- resident assessee

Jaideep Halwasiya, India vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2217/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Mohit Mrinal, DR
Section 153CSection 153C(3)

assessee is barred by limitation by 326 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and assessed to tax in India under PAN AAWPH1706L. The Jaideep Halwasiya; A.Y. 2019-20 assessee stays outside India and his income

Maersk Tankers India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 8376/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92B(2)Section 92C

transaction” under section 92B(1) of the Act, since the said provision expressly requires that one or both of the associated enterprises must be non-residents. The AR read out section 92B(1) of the Act and submitted that the statutory condition is not satisfied in the present case ... submitted that although section 92B(1) contemplates that an international transaction is one where at least one of the associated enterprises is a non-resident, the DRP has held that section 92B(2) expands the scope by deeming certain transactions as international where the transaction, though structured domestically

M/S. Centrix Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6637/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S. Centrix Technologies Vs. Ito-Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited. (Old Jurisdiction-Ito-W1(4), Hyderabad), 7Th Floor, Office No.715, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400020. Samarth Aishwarya, Mumbai-400053. Pan/Gir No:Aabcc7117Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 40

bringing them to India to talk on latest topics in medical and surgical methods. The assessee has paid professional and consultancy charges to non-resident individuals (NRI) amounting to Rs.93,29,358/- without deduction of tax at source. The assessee filed Form No.15 CA but did not file Form

DCIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 3282/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: ShriAbdulla PettiwalaFor Respondent: Shri RiteshMisra(CIT DR)a/w Shri
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 244ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40(1)Section 43B

disallowance made by AO under section 40(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.99,10,219, being reinsurance commission paid by Appellant to non-resident reinsurers notwithstanding that the said payments were not liable for tax deduction at source. 5. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance made ... added back with the total income. Further the Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s expenses related to reinsurance commission paid to the non-resident and resident insurers amount to Rs.99,12,019/- and Rs.1,61,71,012/- respectfully. The assessee has not deducted TDS on nonresident insurers for reinsurance

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 2842/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: ShriAbdulla PettiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra(CIT DR)a/w Shri
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 244ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40(1)Section 43B

disallowance made by AO under section 40(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.99,10,219, being reinsurance commission paid by Appellant to non-resident reinsurers notwithstanding that the said payments were not liable for tax deduction at source. 5. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance made ... added back with the total income. Further the Ld. AO rejected the assessee's expenses related to reinsurance commission paid to the non-resident and resident insurers amount to Rs.99,12,019/- and Rs.1,61,71,012/- respectfully. The assessee has not deducted TDS on nonresident insurers for reinsurance

Riteshkumar Bhupendrabhai Choksi, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 342/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

undisputed fact that the assessee was merely a mandate holder of the bank accounts of his uncle, Shri Jayesh Maneklal Choksi, who is a non-resident Indian with a valid PAN in India. The confirmation letter issued by the uncle clearly establishes the source of cash withdrawals and the purpose

Riteshkumar Bhupendrabhai Choksi, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 341/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

undisputed fact that the assessee was merely a mandate holder of the bank accounts of his uncle, Shri Jayesh Maneklal Choksi, who is a non-resident Indian with a valid PAN in India. The confirmation letter issued by the uncle clearly establishes the source of cash withdrawals and the purpose

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int) Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6570/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

only and nothing more can be added which is not within the scope of Section 44B of the Act because Section 44B provides that non-resident is engaged in the business of operation of ships, then sum equal to 7.5% of the amounts referred to Sub-Section