← 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

Fujitsu Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshfujitsu Ltd, Vs. Acit, 3Rd Floor, Building No. 9B, Circle-1(3)(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon, International Taxation, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacf7231M Assessee By : Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv Ms. Shruti Khimta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, Cit Dr Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 197

rule, the characterization of income as active business income or passive income is decided on the basis of involvement in the activities by the non-resident taxpayer in a source country. One of the bright line tests is the quantum of business expenses. In this case, admittedly, the assessee

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1120/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

refund of excess dividend distribution tax paid by the appellant u/s 115-0 on repatriation of dividend income to its holding company viz. non-resident shareholder companies, Vesuvius Holding Limited (VHL) holding 8.52% shares, Foseco (UK) Limited (FULL) holding 8.46% shares and Foseco Overseas Limited (FOL) holding 58% shares. Briefly ... seen that section 90 is under Chapter IX of the Income Tax Act which is on double taxation relief. This primarily deals with non-resident assesses and section 90(2) states the principle for granting relief of tax for non-resident assesses for avoidance of double taxation

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1119/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

refund of excess dividend distribution tax paid by the appellant u/s 115-0 on repatriation of dividend income to its holding company viz. non-resident shareholder companies, Vesuvius Holding Limited (VHL) holding 8.52% shares, Foseco (UK) Limited (FULL) holding 8.46% shares and Foseco Overseas Limited (FOL) holding 58% shares. Briefly ... seen that section 90 is under Chapter IX of the Income Tax Act which is on double taxation relief. This primarily deals with non-resident assesses and section 90(2) states the principle for granting relief of tax for non-resident assesses for avoidance of double taxation

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 1 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1118/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

refund of excess dividend distribution tax paid by the appellant u/s 115-0 on repatriation of dividend income to its holding company viz. non-resident shareholder companies, Vesuvius Holding Limited (VHL) holding 8.52% shares, Foseco (UK) Limited (FULL) holding 8.46% shares and Foseco Overseas Limited (FOL) holding 58% shares. Briefly ... seen that section 90 is under Chapter IX of the Income Tax Act which is on double taxation relief. This primarily deals with non-resident assesses and section 90(2) states the principle for granting relief of tax for non-resident assesses for avoidance of double taxation

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1117/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

refund of excess dividend distribution tax paid by the appellant u/s 115-0 on repatriation of dividend income to its holding company viz. non-resident shareholder companies, Vesuvius Holding Limited (VHL) holding 8.52% shares, Foseco (UK) Limited (FULL) holding 8.46% shares and Foseco Overseas Limited (FOL) holding 58% shares. Briefly ... seen that section 90 is under Chapter IX of the Income Tax Act which is on double taxation relief. This primarily deals with non-resident assesses and section 90(2) states the principle for granting relief of tax for non-resident assesses for avoidance of double taxation

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 1(!), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1116/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

refund of excess dividend distribution tax paid by the appellant u/s 115-0 on repatriation of dividend income to its holding company viz. non-resident shareholder companies, Vesuvius Holding Limited (VHL) holding 8.52% shares, Foseco (UK) Limited (FULL) holding 8.46% shares and Foseco Overseas Limited (FOL) holding 58% shares. Briefly ... seen that section 90 is under Chapter IX of the Income Tax Act which is on double taxation relief. This primarily deals with non-resident assesses and section 90(2) states the principle for granting relief of tax for non-resident assesses for avoidance of double taxation

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1115/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

refund of excess dividend distribution tax paid by the appellant u/s 115-0 on repatriation of dividend income to its holding company viz. non-resident shareholder companies, Vesuvius Holding Limited (VHL) holding 8.52% shares, Foseco (UK) Limited (FULL) holding 8.46% shares and Foseco Overseas Limited (FOL) holding 58% shares. Briefly ... seen that section 90 is under Chapter IX of the Income Tax Act which is on double taxation relief. This primarily deals with non-resident assesses and section 90(2) states the principle for granting relief of tax for non-resident assesses for avoidance of double taxation

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 1 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1114/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

refund of excess dividend distribution tax paid by the appellant u/s 115-0 on repatriation of dividend income to its holding company viz. non-resident shareholder companies, Vesuvius Holding Limited (VHL) holding 8.52% shares, Foseco (UK) Limited (FULL) holding 8.46% shares and Foseco Overseas Limited (FOL) holding 58% shares. Briefly ... seen that section 90 is under Chapter IX of the Income Tax Act which is on double taxation relief. This primarily deals with non-resident assesses and section 90(2) states the principle for granting relief of tax for non-resident assesses for avoidance of double taxation

Jagdish Choudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1556/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub- section (3) of section 92CA; and ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company." Thus section 144C will apply if both conditions i.e. (c) There is variation u/s 92CAiii ... assessee should be non-company non-resident or foreign company, are to be satisfied. Here condition (b) is satisfied but condition (a) is not satisfied. Therefore sec. 144C should not had been invoked. Hence assessment is time barred. (3) Ld. AO has erred on facts as well

Mma Offshore Asia Vessel Operations Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

ITA 2567/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Punit Lohiya, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 195Section 263

under the Act as well as tax treaty: Taxability under the Act Section 44BB of the Act is a special provision for taxation of non-residents engaged in the business of providing services in the oil and gas sector. As the scope of work pursuant to the contract is integral ... Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 41 and sections 43 and 43A, in the case of an assessee, being a non-resident engaged in the business of providing services, or facilities in connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used

Mma Offshore Asia Vessel Operations Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

ITA 2566/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Punit Lohiya, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 195Section 263

under the Act as well as tax treaty: Taxability under the Act Section 44BB of the Act is a special provision for taxation of non-residents engaged in the business of providing services in the oil and gas sector. As the scope of work pursuant to the contract is integral

Dassault SystÈMes Soildworks Corporaion, Chennai vs. ACIT (International Taxation)_2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4534/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Kumar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

Appeal No(s). 8733-8734/2018) (vide order dated 02 March 2021) held that the amount paid by resident Indian end users/ distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/ suppliers, is not payment for royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and held that such income shall ... case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 14/03/2022 declaring total income of Rs. 69,33,067/-. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in the United States of America and is engaged in the business of developing and marketing 3D mechanical design solutions. It entered

Cadmatic Oy, Mumbai vs. ACIT International Circle, 2 (1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1799/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 195

made by the AO is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 2. The AO failed to appreciate that the assessee is a Non-Resident Company and not having any business operations in India. Thus, the amount received on sale of software to the Indian entities is not taxable ... Excellence (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [2021] 432 ITR 471 (SC) wherein it has been held that the amounts. paid by resident Indian Company to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), New Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Cpp Assistance Services Private Limited, Kalkaji, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2021/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.2021 & 2019/Del/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Dcit, Vs Cpp Assistance Services Private Circle-4(2), Limited, A-370, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Nehru Place, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aadcc2489H

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

assessee to the tune of Rs.14,56,35,000/- (A.Y. 2018-19) and Rs.14,71,82,129/- (A.Y. 2020-21) to its non-resident group company were as fee for technical services as per Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. We find that

Ganesan Nakkeeran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-14(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2089/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2089/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Ganesan Nakkeeran Ito बनाम/ Old No.3, New No.5, Non-Corporate Ward-14(1) 9Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpn-6217-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram (Itp)– Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan(Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.51.20 Lacs As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act. The Ld. Ar Has Prayed For Another Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram (ITP)– Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan(Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 68

Lacs in HDFC Bank. It was stated that the account was used to buy shares for his brother-in-law Mr. Maruthuvanan Senthil Nathan (Non-resident Indian). It was also stated that cash was withdrawn from the account of Shri Senthil Nathan held with SBI, Guindy branch and the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. R K M Powergen Private Limited, T Nagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

ITA 800/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. V. Ravichandran, CA
Section 56(1)

unaccounted funds in the quise of share premium. 2.3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the transaction between the assessee and the non-residents as genuine investments in shares with a premium, covered by the Bombay High Court decision in the case of M/s. Vodafone India Services Private limited ... share premium transactions are not genuine transactions and was only a colourable devise, in order to accommodate the assessees' own un accounted funds, through non-residents, and the receipts are taxable as Income from other sources. 2-3-2 ITA. Nos: 799 & 800/Chny/2023 3. For these grounds and any other

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. R K M Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

ITA 799/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. V. Ravichandran, CA
Section 56(1)

unaccounted funds in the quise of share premium. 2.3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the transaction between the assessee and the non-residents as genuine investments in shares with a premium, covered by the Bombay High Court decision in the case of M/s. Vodafone India Services Private limited ... share premium transactions are not genuine transactions and was only a colourable devise, in order to accommodate the assessees' own un accounted funds, through non-residents, and the receipts are taxable as Income from other sources. 2-3-2 ITA. Nos: 799 & 800/Chny/2023 3. For these grounds and any other

Tricentis Gmbh, Austria vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International-Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3526/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

income earned from sale of software license as business income. 7. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Austria and a tax resident of Austria. As stated by the Departmental Authorities, the assessee is engaged in the business

Tricentis Gmbh, Austria vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2705/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

income earned from sale of software license as business income. 7. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Austria and a tax resident of Austria. As stated by the Departmental Authorities, the assessee is engaged in the business

Ge Hydro France, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle Int.Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1881/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21] Ge Hydro France, Deputy Commissioner Of Income A-18, 1St Floor, Okhla Tax, Industrial, Phase-Ii, Vs Circle International Tax-1(3)(1), Tehkhand, South East Delhi, Civic Centre, Okhla Industrial Estate S.O. New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aafca1688N Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. & Shri Arpit Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr & Ms.Sabiha Rizvi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.11.2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44B

entity which is alleged to also be the PE of the assessee. It is submitted that the end customer cannot constitute PE of the non-resident enterprise in respect of the same transaction. Therefore, without prejudice to the aforesaid, the amounts of receipts from GEPIL for offshore supply made