← 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

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation ) Ward Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Vijayakumar Murthy, Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1588/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1588/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vijayakumar Murthy, International Taxation, 110/3, Mudaliyaar Thottam, Ward, Vinayagar Koil Street-1, Coimbatore 641 018. Modapalayam Railway Colony, Tamil Nadu 638 002. [Pan: Aexpv 8817R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel (Virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Ashwin D. Gowda, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 10(14)(i)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5Section 6(1)Section 69ASection 90

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 29.03.2022. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee a non-resident filed his return of Income on 28.12.2020, admitting total income of Rs.27,83,172/- and revised return of income on 31.03.2021 admitting total income of Rs.2 ... materials available on record, paper book and gone through orders of the authorities below. Brief facts are that the assessee is assessed as non-resident in AY 2020-21 as he had spent less than 60 days in India. The appellant was an employee of the M/s. Ernst & Young

Mohhamad Wajahat Ali Khan, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 848/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 848/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

04/07/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad, relating to A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a non-resident Indian for the A.Y 2017-18. The assessee is residing in USA for both the A.Ys under consideration and earning income Page ... assessee submitted that the provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the Act is not applicable for both the A.Ys because being a non-resident, he does not require to file the return of income in case there is no taxable income in India. Since the assessee is a non

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-II, Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 725/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.725/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dy. C.I.T (It)-Ii Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aadcs4061P (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 154Section 2Section 206ASection 90Section 90(2)Section 9O(2)

Infrastructure Ltd Assessing Officer passed order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and opined that the remittances made to non-resident service provider after deducting 10% TDS as per DTAA is contrary to provisions of section 206AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus, computed short deduction ... applying TDS @ 20% on total remittances made to non-resident in terms of provisions of section 206AA of the Act for non-furnishing of the PAN of the non-resident recipients. According to the Assessing Officer, the TDS rates are determined as per the provisions of Chapter XVIIB which deals