← 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

Dae Won Kang Up Co Ltd, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT International Taxation - 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1446/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1446/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dae Won Kang Up Co Limited Dcit C/O. Daewon India Autoparts Private Ltd. International Taxation-1(1) बनाम/ Survey No.477 & 489, No.99, Chennai. Vs. Papparambakkam Village, Tiruvalluvar Tk.- 602 025. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcd-7280-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. M.S. Vasan (Advocate) & Dr. Divya Abhishek (Ca) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024

For Appellant: Dr. M.S. Vasan (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Interest. 4. The Ld.AO/CIT(A) erred in wrongly assuming that the income from "Guarantee Fee" amounting to Rs.12,761,619/- earned by the non-resident foreign company which is resident of South Korea has accrued or arisen in India without proper reference to the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ... lower authorities. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. Assessment Proceedings 3.1 The assessee is non-resident corporate entity based in South Korea. The assessee is stated to be engaged in manufacturing of suspension springs and seats. During assessment proceedings

Cheran Machines India Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp Circle -1, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1039/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1039/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Cheran Machines India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit 142/3, Main Road, Bharathi Street, Corporate Circle-1 बनाम Chinnavedempatti, Coimbatore. / Vs. Udayampalayam Main Road, Coimbatore-641 049. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-3388-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendran (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms.R. Anita (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendran (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita (Addl.CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)

appearing in Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, given the context and the nature of transaction carried out by the Appellant with the non-resident. 2. Without prejudice to other grounds of appeal, the First Appellate Authority and the Assessing Officer erred in blindly relying on the decision ... under. 2. The assessee is engaged in export of various textile machineries. The assessee paid installation, commissioning and maintenance charges to a non-resident individual by the name PGDA Krishantha (foreign national of Sri Lanka). However, no tax was deducted at source on these payments. As per contractual terms, Shri