← 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

Subhendu Mohanty, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1238/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Subhendu Mohanty Deputy Commissioner H.P.C.L. Of Income Tax 17(1) 1St Floor, Room No. 121, Shri Balaji Alfa Bazar, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Thakorbhai Desai Bkc, Mumbai. Hall, Vs. High Street-1, Law Garden, Ahmedabad- 380006. Pan:Aegpm9693H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Krish DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh- Sr. A.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 197Section 250Section 90

findings of AO of treating the impugned salary income earned outside India pursuant to services rendered outside India as taxable in the hands of non-resident appellant. 1.4. That Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in upholding the findings of AO of not appreciating provisions ... relief u/s 90/91 of the Act of the appellant and not considering the contention of non-chargeability of salary income in the hands of non-resident. 1.6. The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in not allowing the claim of appellant towards non-chargeability

Ketan Chandrakant Motta, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 203/AHD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 274Section 69Section 69A

Case of sheer injustice. 6. Initiation of penalty under Section 274 r.w.s. 271AAC(1) of the Act is wrong. 3. The assessee is a non-resident. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 under Section 139(1)/139(4) of the Income

Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited (Formerly Known As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1114/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) 5.1. The learned AO and CIT(A). NFAC have erred in not appreciating that payments made to non-residents for AMC and maintenance charges amounting to Rs. 49.17.872 were not chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income ... liable to tax deduction under section 195 of the Act. 5.4. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, payments made to non-residents were not Chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961/ Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and consequently

M/S. Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited(Formerly Know As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1113/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) 5.1. The learned AO and CIT(A). NFAC have erred in not appreciating that payments made to non-residents for AMC and maintenance charges amounting to Rs. 49.17.872 were not chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income ... liable to tax deduction under section 195 of the Act. 5.4. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, payments made to non-residents were not Chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961/ Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and consequently

Nandan Sen, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), It, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1929/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 1928 & 1929/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Nandan Sen,……………………………..…………Appellant Hb-87, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, West Bengal [Pan:Ayqps4319G] -Vs.- Assistant Director Of Income Tax,………...Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru

Section 143(1)

stay out of India for more than 180 days leading to which the assessee for the purpose of income tax is treated as non-resident taxpayer. The assessee during the impugned assessment year has voluntarily disclosed total income of Rs.9,25,220/- (for A.Y. 2013-14) and Rs.12 ... submission of the assessee that the ld. Assessing Officer ought to have accepted the salary income of the assessee in the capacity of non-resident. He further submitted that the assessee made a Bonafide error while filing the returns of income, therefore, he should not be punished for a procedural

Nandan Sen, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), It, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1928/KOL/2024[2013-2014 ]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 1928 & 1929/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Nandan Sen,……………………………..…………Appellant Hb-87, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, West Bengal [Pan:Ayqps4319G] -Vs.- Assistant Director Of Income Tax,………...Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru

Section 143(1)

stay out of India for more than 180 days leading to which the assessee for the purpose of income tax is treated as non-resident taxpayer. The assessee during the impugned assessment year has voluntarily disclosed total income of Rs.9,25,220/- (for A.Y. 2013-14) and Rs.12 ... submission of the assessee that the ld. Assessing Officer ought to have accepted the salary income of the assessee in the capacity of non-resident. He further submitted that the assessee made a Bonafide error while filing the returns of income, therefore, he should not be punished for a procedural

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S Prag Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 660/LKW/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 40A(2)

direction of the Additional CIT, West Bengal-I, by charging tax on the rate applicable to the total income received by the non-resident from all the three sources. The ITO in his affidavit-in-opposition has admitted the said fact, namely, that he revised the assessment orders

Kalpana Prakash Kale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Pune

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

ITA 1839/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69

Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the property in question was purchased by her son Mr. Milind Prakash Kale, who is Non-Resident Indian, from his current salary income in USA. The assessee being a housewife and not being technically literate and does not know

Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle2(1)(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2373/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 197Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

taxmann.com 1/233 it comes up 8 that was a case involving the question “Whether the amounts paid by the ONGC to the non-resident assessees /foreign companies for providing various services in connection with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil is chargeable to tax as “fees for technical services ... works contemplated thereunder. If that be so, we will have no hesitation in holding that the payments made by ONGC and received by the non-resident assessees or foreign companies under the said contracts is more appropriately assessable under the provisions of Section 44BB and not Section

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax Provision of chapter X are not applicable to international transaction of issuance of equity share by resident company to its non-resident holding company at certain value, since neither capital receipts received by resident company on issuance of equity shares to its non-resident holding company

Dy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur vs. M/S N Kumar Construction Co .Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal
Section 131Section 148Section 68

Addl. CIT Provision of chapter X are not applicable to international transaction of issuance of equity share by resident company to its non-resident holding company at certain value, since neither capital receipts received by resident company on issuance of equity shares to its non-resident holding company nor short

Smt. Nithya Govindarajan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(3), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 1687/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms.L.Sweety, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153(1)Section 2

notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 20.03.2018. 4. The brief facts relating to the legal issue are that the assessee a non-resident filed her return of income (RoI) for AY 2011-12 on 16.10.2018, and pursuant to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, she declared total income

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1680/CHNY/2024[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(viii)

default, with respect to the same. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to ascertain the cost of payments made to the non-residents for repair charges excluding the material cost. The repair charges paid to the non-residents are in the nature of "fees for technical services" and the appellant ... services", there is no requirement for the non- resident to have a residence or PE in India, and it is not necessary for the non-resident to render services in India. The explanation as laid down u/s 9(1)(viii) reads as under: ITA Nos.1676 & 1680/Chny/2024

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1676/CHNY/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(viii)

default, with respect to the same. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to ascertain the cost of payments made to the non-residents for repair charges excluding the material cost. The repair charges paid to the non-residents are in the nature of "fees for technical services" and the appellant ... services", there is no requirement for the non- resident to have a residence or PE in India, and it is not necessary for the non-resident to render services in India. The explanation as laid down u/s 9(1)(viii) reads as under: ITA Nos.1676 & 1680/Chny/2024

M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl Tax -1(1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited Dcit बनाम/ 46C, Velachery Main Road, Velacherry, International Taxation-1(1) Vs. Chennai-600 042. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(i)

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the Appellant in default for non-deduction of tax on payment to non-residents under section 40(a)(i) without considering the exact nature of service for which payment was made, without examine the correct provisions of the law read with provisions ... Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). 3.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that since the non-resident was paid service charges for providing Co-Location and Telecom voice services in UK and USA and the recipient did not have any permanent establishment in India, the service

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1662/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1255/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1662/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1), 560, 562, 7H Century Plaza, Vs. Chennai. Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Has Common Issues. First We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-01-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee on selling commission 2. paid to non-resident company, when it being in the nature of marketing and consultancy services is taxable in India @ 15% as per Article 12 Clause ... correct on the part of Ld. CIT/A) to allow assessee 's appeal without appreciating the fact that connectivity charges paid to non-resident company, being in the nature of fees for included services, is taxable in India @ 15% as per Article 12 Clause 2(a)(2) of India-USA? Since

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1255/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1255/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1662/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1), 560, 562, 7H Century Plaza, Vs. Chennai. Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Has Common Issues. First We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-01-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee on selling commission 2. paid to non-resident company, when it being in the nature of marketing and consultancy services is taxable in India @ 15% as per Article 12 Clause ... correct on the part of Ld. CIT/A) to allow assessee 's appeal without appreciating the fact that connectivity charges paid to non-resident company, being in the nature of fees for included services, is taxable in India @ 15% as per Article 12 Clause 2(a)(2) of India-USA? Since

Debanjan Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. D.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1959/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1959/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Debanjan Chatterjee,……..…………….…………Appellant C-3/14, East Enclave Cooperative Society, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156 [Pan:Aezpc7707H] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,………………Respondent Cpc, Bengluru, Bangalore-560500 Appearances By: Shri Nilesh Kariya, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 02, 2024 O R D E R

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Officer denied the credit of foreign tax under section 90 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee being a non-resident filed the return of income on 19.02.2022 for the assessment year 2021-22 belatedly by declaring total income of Rs.1 ... considering the rival contentions and perusing the relevant material available on record, we find that the assessee has been staying abroad and was a non-resident during the year in connection with his employment abroad. The assessee claimed foreign tax credit of Rs.37,79,568/- under section 90 and also

Abbas Ali Akhil, Usa vs. ACIT-Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 93/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

assessee, Shri Mohd Afzal, Advocate, referring to the petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional grounds, submitted that the assessee is a non-resident individual, sold agricultural land and not offered any capital gain. The assessment has been reopened under Section 147 of the Act, by issuing notice ... grounds taken by the assessee, we adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Shri Mir Ibrahim Ali is a non-resident individual and has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17. As per the information disseminated

Abbas Ali Akhil, Usa vs. ACIT-Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 92/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

assessee, Shri Mohd Afzal, Advocate, referring to the petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional grounds, submitted that the assessee is a non-resident individual, sold agricultural land and not offered any capital gain. The assessment has been reopened under Section 147 of the Act, by issuing notice ... grounds taken by the assessee, we adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Shri Mir Ibrahim Ali is a non-resident individual and has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17. As per the information disseminated