← 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

Sanjay Ajit, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1317/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1317/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Sanjay Ajit Ito बनाम/ Flat No.69, Sri Vari Gardens, International Taxation Ward, Vkk Menon Road, New Sidhapusur, Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore South-641 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Fcgps-0088-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G.C.Srivasatava (Advocate)(Virtual) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta (Jcit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivasatava (Advocate)(Virtual) -For Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 234DSection 270ASection 5(2)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

adjudication would be as under. 3. Upon perusal of assessment order dated 31-05-2022, it could be seen that the assessee being non-resident individual filed return of income declaring income of Rs.2295/- and claiming refund of Rs.10.08 Lacs. The assessee earned salary of Rs.39.47 Lacs from his employer ... assessee in UK. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. It is quite clear that the assessee is non-resident during impugned assessment year. The substantial salary has been received by the assessee for international assignment to UK. The prime observation of lower authorities