“non-resident”

Sonal Jain, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7162/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2016-17) Sonal Jain, 50, Madhuban, Delhi 110092 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Ackpj-0124-G बिाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : S/Shri Prasoon Agarwal & Rahul Bansal, Chartered Accountants प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-43 [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 09.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are: The Assessee Was Employed In The Uk, Hence, Was A Non-Resident During The Relevant Period. Assessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Were Initiated On Receipt Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs. 37,39,427. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Was Issued. In Response To Said Notice The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.1,07,249/- . During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted That There Were 2 Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs. 1,97,800 In Assessee’S Icici Bank Account During Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Explained Source Of Cash Deposits As Rental Income & Shaguns & Gifts Received From Family Members. In Absence Of Documentary Evidence To Support Assessee'S Claim, The Ao Treated The Said Amount As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act & Made Addition Of The Same. In Appeal Before The Cit(A), The Assessee Remained Unsuccessful.

Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The facts of the case in brief are: The assessee was employed in the UK, hence, was a non-resident during the relevant period. Assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were initiated on receipt

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Limited (Formerly Known As Kyocera Mita Asia Limited), Hongkong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Intt Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Vs. ACIT was held that a business connection involves a relation between a business carried on by a non-resident which yields profit or gain and some activity in the taxable territories. 10. Before us the ld counsel of the assessee submitted that Sales Agreement between

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Limited, Hong Kong vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Vs. ACIT was held that a business connection involves a relation between a business carried on by a non-resident which yields profit or gain and some activity in the taxable territories. 10. Before us the ld counsel of the assessee submitted that Sales Agreement between

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Ltd., (Formerly Known As Kyocera Mita Asia Limited), Hong Kong vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Vs. ACIT was held that a business connection involves a relation between a business carried on by a non-resident which yields profit or gain and some activity in the taxable territories. 10. Before us the ld counsel of the assessee submitted that Sales Agreement between

ACIT (It)- Circle, New Delhi vs. Air France, Delhi

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

required. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a branch office of a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in France and is a tax resident of France. Its head office is situated in Paris, France. The assessee is engaged ... Ground nos. 2 to 15 4. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee, a branch office of a non-resident corporate entity is incorporated in France and a tax resident of France. Its head office is situated in Paris, France. The assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, Delhi vs. Air France, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

required. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a branch office of a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in France and is a tax resident of France. Its head office is situated in Paris, France. The assessee is engaged ... Ground nos. 2 to 15 4. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee, a branch office of a non-resident corporate entity is incorporated in France and a tax resident of France. Its head office is situated in Paris, France. The assessee is engaged in the business

Air France, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1 (1) (10, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

required. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a branch office of a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in France and is a tax resident of France. Its head office is situated in Paris, France. The assessee is engaged ... Ground nos. 2 to 15 4. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee, a branch office of a non-resident corporate entity is incorporated in France and a tax resident of France. Its head office is situated in Paris, France. The assessee is engaged in the business