← 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

Samuel Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1177/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1176/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Evangeline Paul Dhinakaran Dcit बनाम/ #7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Central Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajpd-2491-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1177/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Samuel Paul Dhinakaran Dcit बनाम/ #7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Central Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atspd-8564-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)

also submitted that no incriminating material was found during search. 3. However Ld. AO noted that the assessee was showing his status as non-resident consistently and did not disclose true income. Once notice u/s 153A was issued, residential status was changed to that of resident and taxes were paid ... 153A. Undisputedly, the same has been accepted by Ld. AO in toto. It could be seen that the assessee reflected his status as non-resident whereas in return of income filed u/s 153A, the status has been shown to be that of resident and accordingly, the income earned from foreign

Evangeline Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1176/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1176/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Evangeline Paul Dhinakaran Dcit बनाम/ #7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Central Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajpd-2491-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1177/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Samuel Paul Dhinakaran Dcit बनाम/ #7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Central Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atspd-8564-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)

also submitted that no incriminating material was found during search. 3. However Ld. AO noted that the assessee was showing his status as non-resident consistently and did not disclose true income. Once notice u/s 153A was issued, residential status was changed to that of resident and taxes were paid ... 153A. Undisputedly, the same has been accepted by Ld. AO in toto. It could be seen that the assessee reflected his status as non-resident whereas in return of income filed u/s 153A, the status has been shown to be that of resident and accordingly, the income earned from foreign

Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 865/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

For Appellant: Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 40

Ground Number-4: Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia): 16. Ground No.5 pertains to disallowance of Rs.11,47,701/- in respect of commission paid to non-residents under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO found that no TDS was deducted by the assessee in respect of commission paid ... non-residents. It was contended by the assessee that non-residents to whom the commission was paid had rendered services outside India and that their income was not taxable in India. Accordingly, a request was made not to disallow the foreign commission merely because of non-deduction of TDS under

Income Tax Officer, Greams Road Income Tax Office vs. K Ansari, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1358/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1357/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Mr. K. Ansari बनाम/ #6/1, Parameshwari Nagar International Taxation Ward -1(1) Vs. 4Th Street, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akhpa-5381-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA)-Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Skyline International Cargo, Saudi Arabia and also earned 827226 Kuwait Dinars from M/s Supreme Cargo Express, Kuwait. In terms of Sec.5(2), a non-resident individual is liable to pay tax in India on income that is received or deemed to be received in India. In other words, non-resident ... received is earned outside India. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the assessee’s residential status is that of a non-resident. Therefore, the provisions of Sec.68 would not be attracted to the funds transferred to an NRE account in India which has originated from assessee

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department Greams Road vs. K Ansari, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1357/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1357/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Mr. K. Ansari बनाम/ #6/1, Parameshwari Nagar International Taxation Ward -1(1) Vs. 4Th Street, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akhpa-5381-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA)-Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Skyline International Cargo, Saudi Arabia and also earned 827226 Kuwait Dinars from M/s Supreme Cargo Express, Kuwait. In terms of Sec.5(2), a non-resident individual is liable to pay tax in India on income that is received or deemed to be received in India. In other words, non-resident ... received is earned outside India. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the assessee’s residential status is that of a non-resident. Therefore, the provisions of Sec.68 would not be attracted to the funds transferred to an NRE account in India which has originated from assessee