← 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

Prasidh Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7966/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

States including Madhya Bharat of which Indore became a part, the assessee was assessed at Bombay under the Income-tax Act, 1922 as a non-resident and for some years as resident. The assessee was also assessed in Indore under the Indore Industrial Tax Rules, 1927. For those years ... which it was assessed as a non-resident under Income- tax Act, 1922, only that part of its profits attributable to the sale proceeds of goods received in British India were brought to tax. For the assessment years in question, in ascertaining the "written down value" of the building, machinery

Prasidh Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7965/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

States including Madhya Bharat of which Indore became a part, the assessee was assessed at Bombay under the Income-tax Act, 1922 as a non-resident and for some years as resident. The assessee was also assessed in Indore under the Indore Industrial Tax Rules, 1927. For those years ... which it was assessed as a non-resident under Income- tax Act, 1922, only that part of its profits attributable to the sale proceeds of goods received in British India were brought to tax. For the assessment years in question, in ascertaining the "written down value" of the building, machinery

Vodafone Group Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle- 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6587/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice & And & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, , , , Accountant Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Shri S. Rifaur Rahman Accountantmember Member

India. Before we delve into this issue, it is necessary to briefly discuss the relevant facts. As stated, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in United Kingdom (UK) and a tax resident of that country. It has further been stated by the departmental authorities that the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) (1) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur Ahmedabad vs. Inductotherm (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 598/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 92C

profits under Section 115JB of the Act. - Disallowance of Rs.46,07,317/- under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for payments made to non-residents without deducting tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.46,07,3 17/- paid to non-resident by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to comply the provisions

Swapna Gudipudi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 822/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.822/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Swapna Gudipudi Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan :Bggpd9298C] Taxation)-1 Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, SR-DR
Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148

dated 01/03/2023 (page No.13 of the paper book), in which the Ld. AO has mentioned that the assessee is a non-resident individual. Therefore, from the initiation of reassessment proceedings and till the passing of the draft order, Ld. AO was of the opinion that the assessee was a non ... documents, we found that till the passing of the draft assessment order, the Ld. AO was of the view that the assessee was a non-resident. However, while passing the final assessment order, the Ld. AO changed his mind and concluded that the assessee is a resident. Therefore, there

Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1043/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalhindustan Construction Company Ltd., Hincon House, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 083. Pan No.: Aaach0968B ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-6, R. No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Unadkat, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 90Section 92C

arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub- section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: Provided that such eligible assessee shall not include person referred to in sub-section (1) of section

Raghav Agarwalla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4258/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Raghav Agarwalla, Ito, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), 13/14, Buckley Court, Room No. 1817, 18Th Floor, Air India Vs. 5 Woodhouse Road, Colaba, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Ahbpa 8174 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal/Akhilesh Deshmukh
Section 1Section 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

year 2021-22, raising following grounds: Raghav Agarwalla 2 I. Status of the Appellant is a Non I. Status of the Appellant is a Non-Resident Indian and not a Resident Indian and not a Resident of India as held by the Ld. DRP as well ... days, being lower than 182 days, the Appellant shall be considered as a Non e Appellant shall be considered as a Non-Resident as per clause Resident as per clause (a) to Explanation 1 to section 6(1)(c) of the Act (a) to Explanation 1 to section

Varsha Himanshu Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1909/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143Section 154

credit of TDS of Rs.1,85,49,860/-. 3. The brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal are that the assessee, a Non-Resident Indian (hereinafter, the ‘NRI’), sold her co- owned property situated at Ahmedabad to Mr. Kamlesh Keshavlal Gondalia for sale consideration of Rs.15

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 374/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

assessee before us. 19. In the case of Mrs. Delna Rustum Boyce (supra), the AAR was considering the case of an assessee, a non-resident, who proposed to set up and promote a unit to produce fruit-based drink mixes/concentrates derived from fruit juices through various processes involving various steps

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 373/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

assessee before us. 19. In the case of Mrs. Delna Rustum Boyce (supra), the AAR was considering the case of an assessee, a non-resident, who proposed to set up and promote a unit to produce fruit-based drink mixes/concentrates derived from fruit juices through various processes involving various steps

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 372/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

assessee before us. 19. In the case of Mrs. Delna Rustum Boyce (supra), the AAR was considering the case of an assessee, a non-resident, who proposed to set up and promote a unit to produce fruit-based drink mixes/concentrates derived from fruit juices through various processes involving various steps

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 371/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

assessee before us. 19. In the case of Mrs. Delna Rustum Boyce (supra), the AAR was considering the case of an assessee, a non-resident, who proposed to set up and promote a unit to produce fruit-based drink mixes/concentrates derived from fruit juices through various processes involving various steps

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(1), Indore vs. Prataap Snacks Limited, Indore

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 370/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

assessee before us. 19. In the case of Mrs. Delna Rustum Boyce (supra), the AAR was considering the case of an assessee, a non-resident, who proposed to set up and promote a unit to produce fruit-based drink mixes/concentrates derived from fruit juices through various processes involving various steps

Chemox Exports Imports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 3954/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3954/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

AAACC4120G 2018-19 30/03/2022 ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042134900(1) Name of the assessee CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD Address of the assessee Resident/ Not Ordinarily Resident/ Non-Resident 6TH FLOOR CHEMOX HOUSE, 7TH BARRACK ROAD BOMBAY HOSPITAL LANE MUMBAI 400020, Maharashtra India Date of order 30/03/2022 Specified authority approval Name PCIT, Mumbai

Attachmate Corporation, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 782/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

well as under India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and is incorporated in the United States of America (USA) and is a tax resident of USA. As stated, the assessee is engaged

The ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Va Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 326/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp) No.7/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.8/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.9/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.326/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V.A Tech Wabag Limited, Corporate Circle-3(2) No.17, Wabag House, Chennai 200 Feet Radial Road, Sunnambukolathur, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aabcv0225G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Kutty, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. C. Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Amitabh Shukla, A.M : Delay S. Appel- Appeal Nos. Ays Cit(A) Order Details Respondent In Filing No. Lant Appeal A B C D E F G Acit, Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / M/S. V.A Tech It(Tp)-7 / Cc- 2020-21 / 1029389607 (1) Wabag 1 2013-14 4 Days Chny/2021 3(2), Dt.31.12.2020 Limited, Chennai Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-8 / 2 2014-15 2020-21 / 1029389231 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-9 / 3 2015-16 2020-21 / 1029389414 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-326 3 4 2016-17 2020-21 / 1031510911 (1) /Chny/2021 Months Dt.16.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kutty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)

informed that there was a survey u/s 133A on 27.07.2014 upon the assesse. It transpired therefrom that the assesse had paid consultancy fees to non-resident parities without TDS deduction u/s 40(a)(ia). Before the Ld. AO, the assesse pleaded that the impugned expenses did not warrant TDS deduction ... parties are all stationed outside India with no local office etc. The assesse also gave details of services reportedly given by the said non-resident parties. The IT(TP)A No.7, 8, 9 & 326/Chny/2021 :- 8 -: Ld. AO however rejected the contentions by relying upon explanation-2 to section

The DCIT, Circle (International Taxation), Chandigarh vs. Sh. Manjeet Singh, Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed whereas, Cross

ITA 512/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs. Shri Manjeet Singh, बनाम Circle (International S/O Shri Harbir Singh Taxation), # 1460, Ward Number-8, Chandigarh Gahlewal, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 13/Chd/2022 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Manjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम S/O Shri Harbir Singh Circle (International # 1460, Ward Number-8, Taxation ), Gahlewal, Chandigarh Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

request of the ld. Counsel of the assessee was proceeded to and the ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that the assessee is a non-resident which is borne out from the following facts: “The assessee is a 'Non-Resident' which is evident from the following facts: 1. The letter ... inadvertently the status had been mentioned as 'Resident'. 4. The assessee had filed return for A.Y 2011-12 on 28.11.2018 mentioning the status as ‘Non-Resident Indian’ (NRI). 5. Notices u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.2.2019 was issued by the ITO, Ward 3(4), Ludhiana though, it was well

Arjun Das Jasuja, Jabalpur vs. The CIT (It & Tp), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 796/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.796/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Arjun Das Jasuja The Cit (It & Tp) बनाम/ 16, Nayagaon, Rampur Circle-2 V/S. Jebalpur Ahmedabad Madhya Pradesh – 462 008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aehpj 3059 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapan Usrethe, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nand Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

dated 29.09.2021. Arjun Das Jasuja vs. CIT (IT & TP) Asst. Year : 2019-20 2 Facts of the case: 2. The assessee, Non-Resident, filed his return of income for AY 2019-20 on 27.09.2019, declaring a total income of Rs.24,51,708/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1229/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act. The High Court held that the skill, business acumen and knowledge acquired by the non-resident were for his own benefit and use. ............... 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Toshoku ... commission agents outside India was not taxable in India. The Apex Court observed Algonomy Software Pvt. Ltd. that the sales commission earned by the non-resident agents cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 12. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Faizan

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1226/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act. The High Court held that the skill, business acumen and knowledge acquired by the non-resident were for his own benefit and use. ............... 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Toshoku ... commission agents outside India was not taxable in India. The Apex Court observed Algonomy Software Pvt. Ltd. that the sales commission earned by the non-resident agents cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 12. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Faizan