← 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

Yashvant Soma Gawade, Bhandup West Mumbai vs. 28(3)(5), Navi Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1643/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Firoz B Andhyarujina, Sr. Advocate along with Sh. Sanjay H PawarFor Respondent: Mrs. Beena Santosh
Section 144Section 147

also in law, It is true that the assessee did not respond before lower authority due to circumstances beyond control - i) The appellant was Non-Resident. ii) The email sent was not received and hence appellant was unaware. iii) The appellant was serious in pursuing the matter and therefore file

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Finland DTAA and thereby not granting refund of the excess Dividend Distribution Tax taxes paid by the Appellant as the recipient shareholder was a non-resident governed by the provisions of the said DTAA. 5.3 That the learned AO failed to appreciate that the dividend income, being taxable ... hands of non-resident shareholder, cannot be subjected to a tax rate in excess of the rate prescribed under the India-Finland DTAA in light of the provisions of Section 90(2) r.w. Section 10(34) and hence, erred in subjecting the Appellant to excessive income tax in terms

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2557/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 9(1)(vi)

making additions to the total income of the Appellant for the subject AY in respect of royalty income received by the Appellant from the non-resident licensees from sale of licensed products under the Patent Licensing Agreement as per provisions of section ... erred in law on initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act.” 6. M/s Qualcomm is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of USA. It is engaged in the business of design, development, manufacture, marketing and licensing of digital wireless 6 telecommunication products and services based

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2556/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 9(1)(vi)

making additions to the total income of the Appellant for the subject AY in respect of royalty income received by the Appellant from the non-resident licensees from sale of licensed products under the Patent Licensing Agreement as per provisions of section ... erred in law on initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act.” 6. M/s Qualcomm is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of USA. It is engaged in the business of design, development, manufacture, marketing and licensing of digital wireless 6 telecommunication products and services based

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2432/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2017-18]

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

making additions to the total income of the Appellant for the subject AY in respect of royalty income received by the Appellant from the non-resident licensees from sale of licensed products under the Patent Licensing Agreement as per provisions of section ... erred in law on initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act.” 5 4. M/s Qualcomm is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of USA. It is engaged in the business of design, development, manufacture, marketing and licensing of digital wireless telecommunication products and services based

Dr. Priya Narula, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward Int. Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2324/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vikeram Kakar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. SabihaRizvi, Sr. Dr
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 274Section 68

filed is considered reasonable and accordingly the delay is condoned. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident citizen of UK and tax resident of the said country as per Laws of United Kingdom of Great Britain. The assessee is practicing Medicine

Sh. Saurabh Kaushik, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 312/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal., CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 194ISection 195Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

Individual. He along with his father Sh. Suraj Bhan Kaushik, purchased a property from Smt. Shakuntla Mitter (hereinafter referred .to as 'Seller'), a non-resident, vide sale deed dtd. 25.04.2019. (Copy placed at Page No. __). Total sale consideration of the property was Rs. 1,17,00,000/- out of which ... enough and no further TDS statement is required. However, this particular case of the appellant was slightly different that the seller was a non-resident. Based on this advice, the appellant did not file TDS statement. A comparison of relevant provisions, whereby in case of resident seller, no TDS statement

Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Chennai vs. DCIT (International Tax)-1 (1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 349/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.349/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers, International Taxation 1(1) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aadcd 3705D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 155(14)

written submissions. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 3. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in United States of America (USA). The assessee returned income of Rs.37.95 Crores and claimed refund of Rs.3.51 Crores. It transpired that

Jaishree Varadaraj, Coimbatore vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Shri Jaishree Varadaraj, The Ito, 1547-A, Avinashi Road, International Taxation Ward, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 004. [Pan: Abgpv 5575 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

Rs.8,26,79,878/- in the hands of the assessee. Shri Jaishree Varadaraj :: 2 :: 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Individual (NRI) and had filed his return of income (RoI) u/s.139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2018 declaring taxable income of Rs.5

ITO, Ward-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai vs. Shri Ahmed Thambi, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.376/Chny/2023 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ahamed Thambi, Ward-2(1), Vs. New No.24, Old No.18-C, International Taxation, Mayor Sivashanmugam Pillai Chennai. Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Ahcpr 1686A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate IjथG की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)]In Ita No.12/Cit(A)-16/2021-22, Dated 19.01.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 13.04.2021. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

exempt income. After considering the details, documents and other information furnished by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that the assessee was a non-resident in India during the assessment year under consideration and allowed the appeal of the assessee holding as under: 5. After taking into account the above ... submitted by the appellant in the form of passport, the appellant has stayed in India in all for 30 days. His status as a non-resident in India is an undisputed fact as emerging fromn assessment record as well as assessment order also. The Authorised Representative of the appellant pleaded

Rahul Agarwal, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 765/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(35)Section 111ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

interests of justice. Total Tax Effect 52,19,475 2. The Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident for AY 2016-17. Consequent to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Ashish Agarwal dated ... exemption and added back Rs.1,36,96,832 as dividend income under the head income from other sources. He noted that the assessee being non-resident is an eligible assessee as per section 144C(b)(ii) of the Act and passed draft assessment order

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Ashok Narendra Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3373/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2018-19 Acit, Circle – 19(1) Ashok Narendra Mehta, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 132, 13Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Siddhesh Darshan, Mumbai. 10Th Khetwadi Main Road, Khetwadi, Mumbai Pan : Aivpm9318A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-08-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 988/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

Umw Sher (L) Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Int.Tax. Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2348/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2346 To 2348/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2013-14 To 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 44BSection 5(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

section (1) to section 44BB, even if in the nature of royalty, has to be treated as business profits in case of a non-resident entity not having any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. This is so because, section 44BB does not require existence of PE. Interestingly, similar receipts falling ... section 9(1)(vi), which also includes equipment royalty, would be taxable under section 44DA of the Act, in a case, where the non-resident entity has a PE in India. Thus, sections 9(1)(vi), 44BB and 44DA apply in different situations. While existence

Umw Sher (L) Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2347/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2346 To 2348/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2013-14 To 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 44BSection 5(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

section (1) to section 44BB, even if in the nature of royalty, has to be treated as business profits in case of a non-resident entity not having any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. This is so because, section 44BB does not require existence of PE. Interestingly, similar receipts falling ... section 9(1)(vi), which also includes equipment royalty, would be taxable under section 44DA of the Act, in a case, where the non-resident entity has a PE in India. Thus, sections 9(1)(vi), 44BB and 44DA apply in different situations. While existence

Umw Sher (L) Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2346/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2346 To 2348/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2013-14 To 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 44BSection 5(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

section (1) to section 44BB, even if in the nature of royalty, has to be treated as business profits in case of a non-resident entity not having any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. This is so because, section 44BB does not require existence of PE. Interestingly, similar receipts falling ... section 9(1)(vi), which also includes equipment royalty, would be taxable under section 44DA of the Act, in a case, where the non-resident entity has a PE in India. Thus, sections 9(1)(vi), 44BB and 44DA apply in different situations. While existence

Universal Tractor Holding Llc, Usa vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2216/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Durgesh Shankar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Neorem, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 49

Holding LLC damages awarded by the decree of the court are outside the purview of Income Tax Act 1961.” 3. The assessee is a non-resident company filed return declaring NIL income and claiming refund of the TDS of Rs.1.76 Cr. which was deducted on account of the decree awarded

Balram Chainrai, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2267/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153Section 271(1)(c)

that ground no. 1.1 with regard to limitation is not pressed and therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The assessee is a non-resident individual and filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 28.07.2016 declaring a total income ... show that the assessee is in any way involved in the alleged sham transaction. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is a non-resident and is regular investor in mutual funds which is evidence from the statement of income (page 136 of PB) wherein the assessee has declared