← 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. Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Coimbatore

ITA 1614/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1613 & 1614/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Vs. 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) C.O No. 68/Chny/2024 (Arises In Ita No. 1614/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By The Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore. Vs. (International Taxation), (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 & 10.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 :- 2 -:

Section 143(3)

Chennai (hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 27.03.2024 & 29.03.2024, respectively. We will take up the ITA1613/Chny/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 first. 2. The assessee is a Non-Resident individual deriving income from salary. Assessee has filed his return of income on 30.08.2018 admitting income Nil for A.Y 2018-19. However

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation) Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Coimbatore

ITA 1613/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1613 & 1614/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Vs. 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) C.O No. 68/Chny/2024 (Arises In Ita No. 1614/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 & 10.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 :- 2 -:

For Respondent: Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A
Section 143(3)

Chennai (hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 27.03.2024 & 29.03.2024, respectively. We will take up the ITA1613/Chny/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 first. 2. The assessee is a Non-Resident individual deriving income from salary. Assessee has filed his return of income on 30.08.2018 admitting income Nil for A.Y 2018-19. However

Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 489/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.489/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi The Ito बनाम/ 903, Anurag Flats Ward-2, International Taxation V/S. Nr.Vidhyanagar School Ahmedabad Usmanpura Ahmedabad – 380 014 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ceepp 9266 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69A

Chemicals DMCC, UAE, with an annual salary of AED 765,200, including a performance incentive of AED 145,000. The couple maintained joint NRE (Non-Resident External) and NRO (Non-Resident Ordinary) bank accounts in India. 2.1. The assessee did not file his Income Tax Return ... hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee, submitted that the assessee and his wife, Mrs. Aashita P. Pancholi, have been non-residents for more than 10 years, working in the UAE. During the relevant financial year (2017-18). The AR explained the details of employment of assessee

Testec Asia Limited, United Arab Emirates vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 44/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.44/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Testec Asia Limited The Dy.Director Of Income Tax बनाम/ United Arab Emirates Circle, International Taxation V/S. P.O. Box No.16799, Dubai, Vadodara- 390 007 United Arab Emirates – 999999 (Or) Villa 11, Street 5, Medows 1, Emirates Hill, United Arab Emirates – Not Listed 999999 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aajct 4035 A (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Virat Bhavsar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 205Section 250

parties and perused the material available on records including additional evidence submitted by the assessee before us. The assessee, a foreign company and non-resident in India, had invested in ADRs of Vedanta Ltd. from FY 2012-13 to 2016-17. In November 2021, Vedanta Ltd. announced the redemption