← 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

Asha Shivdasani, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarasha Ranjit Shivdasani V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of 801, Benhur Apartments, बनाम Income Tax (Appeals), Acit 32, Narayan Debholkar Central Circle – 5(3), Road, Malabar Hills, Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air Mumbai – 400 006, India Building, Nariman Point, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bhzps0010H Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Shreyas Shah,ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

Asha Ranjit Shivdasani at the time of search belonged to her daughter Ms. Rishika Chainai and since she is non-resident of India, she decided to keep her jewellery with her parents. However, AO did not accept contention of the assessee as the assessee herself during the course of search ... further submitted that assessee was non- resident between 1979 to 1998 and resident but not ordinarily resident till 2003 and even her mother was non-resident of India. The assessee therefore mentioned that she had clearly substantiated the source of jewellery. 4.1 The ld.CIT(A) observed that during the course

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1539/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Nos. Assessee Revenue A.Ys 1536 To 1539/ Hyd/2025 Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad Pan:Ckmpk5466J Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1), Hyderabad 2015-16 & 2016-17 निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: || Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: | 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili ("The Assessee") Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151A(1)Section 153

Name of the assessee Dated: 06/04/2022 DIN & Notice No: ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1042593845(1) SUKESINI KUMILI Address of the assessee Resident/ Not Ordinarily Resident/ Non-Resident Η ΝΟ 11-4-1306/3 RAILWAY QUARTERS, CHILKALGUDA SECUNDERABAD 500025, Andhra Pradesh Date of order COME TAX DEPARTMENT 06/04/2022 Specified authority approval Name PCCIT, AP & TELANGANA

Noida Towers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

ITA 4199/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

non- resident investors. 16. That the NFAC grossly erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that, since the shares were issued to non-residents, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act were not applicable thereto. 17. That the NFAC grossly erred on facts ... appreciating that the complete details of subscribers i.e. non-resident allottees along with their addresses, number of shares issued, amount subscribed by each subscriber, Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC), Tax Residency Certificates (TRC) were placed on already on record. 18. That the NFAC grossly erred on facts

Al Hamd Agro Food Products Pvt Ltd, Aligarh vs. Dc/ACIT, Aligarh

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 63/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

Gurgaon. Learned CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by assessee on another issue and dismissed the issue of commission paid to non-resident without TDS deduction. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in this appeal, raising following grounds : “1. Because The CIT(A) has erred in confirming ... hearing, learned AR of assessee submitted that the assessee is a large exporter of meat and relevant details of commission paid to the non-residents are reproduced at page 5 of the assessment order and he submitted that the assessee has paid commission to the non-resident towards procurement

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Emco Exports, Agra

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 415/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

deal with foreign clients and they have made payments for the foreign agents commission and trade fair expenses etc. The foreign commission agent was non-resident and had no income chargeable to tax in India. Assessee submitted Form 15CA of commission remittance issued by the foreign commission agent, giving details ... Learned CIT(A) further observed that the department has accepted the stand of assessee earlier and there was no deduction for making payment to non-resident agents, wherein identical facts and payments to the same non-resident agent has been made. He, accordingly, deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing

Gulf Piping Company Wll, Abu Dhabi vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

ITA 83/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

particular item of income, the payment should not be regarded as residuary income but India in the absence of a PE of the non-resident in India. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on this decision in para 7.3 (extracted above) of his appellate order held that the impugned remittances/ payments ... Madras High Court in the case of Bankok Glass Industry Ltd. (supra). The brief facts in this case are that the assessee, a non-resident company of Thailand, entered into technical assistance know-how agreement with MBDL in India for transfer of glass technology know-how. The assessee received technical

Gulf Piping Company Wll, United Arab Emirates vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

ITA 81/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

particular item of income, the payment should not be regarded as residuary income but India in the absence of a PE of the non-resident in India. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on this decision in para 7.3 (extracted above) of his appellate order held that the impugned remittances/ payments ... Madras High Court in the case of Bankok Glass Industry Ltd. (supra). The brief facts in this case are that the assessee, a non-resident company of Thailand, entered into technical assistance know-how agreement with MBDL in India for transfer of glass technology know-how. The assessee received technical

Gulf Piping Company Wll, United Arab Emirates vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

ITA 71/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

particular item of income, the payment should not be regarded as residuary income but India in the absence of a PE of the non-resident in India. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on this decision in para 7.3 (extracted above) of his appellate order held that the impugned remittances/ payments ... Madras High Court in the case of Bankok Glass Industry Ltd. (supra). The brief facts in this case are that the assessee, a non-resident company of Thailand, entered into technical assistance know-how agreement with MBDL in India for transfer of glass technology know-how. The assessee received technical

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5256/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

routed to the operators in India, who would pass them on to the customers. The question was whether the payments made to the non-resident were in the nature of royalty and therefore come within the scope of section 9(1) of the Income

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5255/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5254/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5253/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

ITO (It) 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5252/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20) 2 ORDER PER BENCH: The Revenue has filed the present

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5251/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20) 2 ORDER PER BENCH: The Revenue has filed the present

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5250/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

PER BENCH: The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 27/06/2025, passed under

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5249/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5248/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

routed to the operators in India, who would pass them on to the customers. The question was whether the payments made to the non-resident were in the nature of royalty and therefore come within the scope of section 9(1) of the Income

ITO (It) 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5247/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

PAGE 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP