← 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

Goodyear India Ltd, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

uncontrolled transaction’ has been clearly defined under Rule 10A(a) to mean ‘a transaction between enterprises other than associated enterprises whether resident or non-resident’. A plain reading of the meaning given to the expression ‘uncontrolled transaction’ leaves no room for any doubt that it is a transaction between

Itochu Corporation, Japan vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 760/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT( DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Explanation 1(b) of section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which states as under:"in the case of a non-resident, no income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India to him through or from operations which are confined to the purchase of goods

Rekha Maheshwari, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 1Section 143(1)Section 194ISection 199

194BB, respectively. 8.2 Likewise, payments made to contractors and insurance commission, payments made in respect of life insurance policy, and payments made to the non-resident sportsmen or sports associations are liable for deduction to tax at source under Sections 194C, 194D, 194DA, and 194E, respectively ... payments made to non-residents [not being a company], or to a foreign company are concerned, any interest (not being interest referred to in section 194LB or section 194LC or section 194LD) or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being income chargeable under the head

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4840/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

statutory provisions under the Act, relevant to the case under consideration, read as under: Section 115G “115G. It shall not be necessary for a non-resident Indian to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139 a return of his income if- (a) his total income in respect of which

Alan Moses Mozes, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Intl. Taxn., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(4)(ii)Section 5(2)Section 6(1)Section 69A

residency certificate, file relevant profit and loss account of the overseas business etc. In response, the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non-resident and has earned income from business in Hong Kong during Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee had opened NRE FD account for such business income ... assessee submitted that the assessee, Mr. Alan Moses is a citizen of Israel and was carrying on business in Hong Kong. He is a non-resident as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the Counsel for the assessee produced a copy of passport of the assessee

Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward Coimbatore vs. Muthu Kishore, Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1288/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1288/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer Muthu Kishore, V. International Taxation Peelikampati, Soorianallur, Ward, Thayampalayam, Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 638 703. [Pan: Blopk-4850-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Fouad Zubair, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. Fouad Zubair, CA
Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(3)

DTAA, :-2-: ITA. No: 1288/Chny/2024 under which the assessee is not eligible to claim relief under article 15(1) since the assessee being a non-resident. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the benefit to the assessee ignoring ... this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dennis Victor Rozario v. DDIT in ITA No. 298/Mds/2016 dated 06.01.2017.” 3. The assessee is a non-resident individual filed his return of Income on 06.08.2018 and revised return of income for AY 2018-19 on 29.03.2019, declared an income of Rs.NIL

Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 782/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781 & 782/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2015-16 Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, The Income Tax Kalani & Co, Chartered V Officer, Accountants, 5Th Floor, S Ward-1, Sikar. Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015. Pan: Agmps6843H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P.C.Parwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh–Addl.Cit(Ar) Date Of Hearing 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E.Mr.Sanjay Sharma Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Both Dated 29.04.2024 For A.Y.2015-16, One Emanating From The Assessment Order U/Sec.147 Dated 27.03.2023

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of order passed by AO in the status of resident whereas the assessee is non-resident and thus the jurisdiction over the assessee lies with AO, International Taxation and not with National Faceless Assessment Centre ... erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of order passed by AO in the status of resident whereas the assessee is non-resident and thus the jurisdiction over the assessee lies with AO, International Taxation and not with National Faceless Assessment Centre. 3. The appellant craves

Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 781/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781 & 782/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2015-16 Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, The Income Tax Kalani & Co, Chartered V Officer, Accountants, 5Th Floor, S Ward-1, Sikar. Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015. Pan: Agmps6843H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P.C.Parwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh–Addl.Cit(Ar) Date Of Hearing 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E.Mr.Sanjay Sharma Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Both Dated 29.04.2024 For A.Y.2015-16, One Emanating From The Assessment Order U/Sec.147 Dated 27.03.2023

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of order passed by AO in the status of resident whereas the assessee is non-resident and thus the jurisdiction over the assessee lies with AO, International Taxation and not with National Faceless Assessment Centre ... erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of order passed by AO in the status of resident whereas the assessee is non-resident and thus the jurisdiction over the assessee lies with AO, International Taxation and not with National Faceless Assessment Centre. 3. The appellant craves

Anand Bhairat, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1177/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Adam Kajabee, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

assessee u/s. 90 amounting to Rs.29,46,150/- in respect of taxes paid in USA. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee being a non-resident in India during the relevant period was not aware about Form 67 to be filed in order to claim the FTC. It is only

Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-23(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1682/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K GopalFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 69

assessee appeal within the limitation period. He submitted that the assessee appeal within the limitation period. He submitted that the assessee is a non-resident Indian and notice was sent at address of his resident Indian and notice was sent at address of his resident Indian and notice was sent

Bticino S.P.A, Italy vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation-1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2294/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

above case has been considerably overturned with the amendment of Finance Act 2010 where substantial emphasis is given to business connection of the non-residents rather than the situs of business activity of the non-residents regarding taxability of income arising or accruing from India. The Panel, therefore, confirms ... inter alia, that in case of payments as mentioned under these clauses, income would be deemed to accrue or arise in India to the non-resident under the circumstances specified therein. The intention of introducing the source rule was to bring to tax interest, royalty and fees for technical services

Shri Santanu Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 41/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 250

foreign allowances outside India for services rendered in United Kingdom. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that appellant is a qualified non-resident Indian during the AY 2016- 17 and a non-resident would be taxable in India only in respect of income received/deemed to be received in India ... held with Kotak Mahindra Bank for FY 2015-16 4.3. From the records it admits of no doubt that appellant is qualified as a non-resident Indian during the previous AY 2015-16 as it is evident from his stay in India during the relevant previous year. Ld. Counsel

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 791/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

issue of notice UIs. 148 of the Act is that, the respondent had issued debentures of Rs.360 crores to M/s. Arduino Holdings Ltd, a non-resident company to whom initially it was agreed that, interest would be paid at 7% p.a. However, on renegotiation it was agreed that, no interest

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 790/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

issue of notice UIs. 148 of the Act is that, the respondent had issued debentures of Rs.360 crores to M/s. Arduino Holdings Ltd, a non-resident company to whom initially it was agreed that, interest would be paid at 7% p.a. However, on renegotiation it was agreed that, no interest

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 789/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

issue of notice UIs. 148 of the Act is that, the respondent had issued debentures of Rs.360 crores to M/s. Arduino Holdings Ltd, a non-resident company to whom initially it was agreed that, interest would be paid at 7% p.a. However, on renegotiation it was agreed that, no interest

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bangalore

ITA 788/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

issue of notice UIs. 148 of the Act is that, the respondent had issued debentures of Rs.360 crores to M/s. Arduino Holdings Ltd, a non-resident company to whom initially it was agreed that, interest would be paid at 7% p.a. However, on renegotiation it was agreed that, no interest

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 787/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

issue of notice UIs. 148 of the Act is that, the respondent had issued debentures of Rs.360 crores to M/s. Arduino Holdings Ltd, a non-resident company to whom initially it was agreed that, interest would be paid at 7% p.a. However, on renegotiation it was agreed that, no interest

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 786/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

issue of notice UIs. 148 of the Act is that, the respondent had issued debentures of Rs.360 crores to M/s. Arduino Holdings Ltd, a non-resident company to whom initially it was agreed that, interest would be paid at 7% p.a. However, on renegotiation it was agreed that, no interest

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 785/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

issue of notice UIs. 148 of the Act is that, the respondent had issued debentures of Rs.360 crores to M/s. Arduino Holdings Ltd, a non-resident company to whom initially it was agreed that, interest would be paid at 7% p.a. However, on renegotiation it was agreed that, no interest

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 784/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

issue of notice UIs. 148 of the Act is that, the respondent had issued debentures of Rs.360 crores to M/s. Arduino Holdings Ltd, a non-resident company to whom initially it was agreed that, interest would be paid at 7% p.a. However, on renegotiation it was agreed that, no interest