Section 90

Section 90 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 90, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• AAR v Tiger Global International II Holdings Supreme CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  I hold a Mauritius TRC. Can the department still deny me treaty relief on the capital gains?
  Yes. A Tax Residency Certificate is a necessary eligibility requirement under s.90(4) but is not sufficient or conclusive evidence of residence, beneficial ownership or entitlement to treaty benefits, and the authorities may examine the substance of the arrangement. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the AAR's rejection and held the gains taxable in India.
• Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd v Addl DIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  We run an Indian hotel under a long management agreement but own no office here. Can the department say we have a permanent establishment?
  Yes, on facts like these. A twenty-year agreement under which the foreign company appointed and supervised the general manager, set human resource and procurement policy, controlled pricing and marketing, and operated the hotel's bank accounts, performed through its own staff working from the hotel, made the hotel premises a fixed place of business under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE treaty. Exclusive or designated space is not required; what is required is that the premises be at the enterprise's disposal and that its business be carried on through them.
• AO v Nestle SA Supreme CourtHelps department
  My protocol has an MFN clause and I applied the lower rate India later agreed with an OECD member. Was I entitled to?
  No, on both counts. A notification under s.90(1) is a mandatory condition before any court, authority or tribunal can give effect to a treaty or to a protocol that alters the existing provisions of law, so an MFN clause does not import a later treaty's rate or scope by itself. And where the clause is triggered by India's treaty with a third state 'which is a member of the OECD', that state must have been an OECD member when it entered the treaty with India, not merely by the time the benefit is claimed.
• DIT v Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  My foreign company opened a project office in India to coordinate an EPC contract. Has the department made it a permanent establishment, and can it tax a slice of my offshore revenue?
  No, not on those facts. The Supreme Court held that a fixed place is a permanent establishment under Article 5(1) of the India-Korea treaty only if the core business of the foreign enterprise is carried on through it. Samsung's Mumbai project office had two non-technical employees, its accounts showed no expenditure on executing the contract, and it did liaison and coordination work only — preparatory or auxiliary activity excluded by Article 5(4)(e). The Court also held the burden of proving a permanent establishment is initially on the Revenue, and that an ad hoc attribution of 25 per cent of gross offshore revenue had no foundation.
• ADIT v E-Funds IT Solution Inc Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  We outsource back-office work to our Indian subsidiary. Does that give us a permanent establishment in India?
  No, not by itself. The Revenue must prove that a fixed place in India was at the disposal of the foreign company and that the foreign company carried on its own business through it. Close association between parent and subsidiary, and the fact that the Indian company depends on the group for its work, do not answer that question, and the functions-assets-risks analysis borrowed from transfer pricing is not the test for whether a fixed place permanent establishment exists.
• Formula One World Championship Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  We had access to an Indian venue for only a few days in the year. Can that be a permanent establishment?
  Yes. A place is at the disposal of an enterprise when the enterprise has the right to use it and control over it, and a fixed place permanent establishment needs stability, productivity and dependence rather than ownership or a long lease. The Buddh International Circuit was a fixed place through which Formula One World Championship Ltd carried on its commercial activity, so it had a permanent establishment in India.
• DIT v A.P. Moller Maersk A/S Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  Our Indian agents pay the foreign principal a pro-rata share of the cost of its global booking and communication system — is that fees for technical services taxable in India?
  No. The Supreme Court held that the payments the Indian agents made to a Danish shipping line for using its Maersk Net system were reimbursement of a proportionate share of cost, not fees for technical services. The system was an integral part of the shipping business and was a common facility available to all agents worldwide, not a service catering to any agent's special needs. Once the character of a payment is reimbursement of expenses, it cannot be income chargeable to tax; and since freight income was exempt under the India-Denmark treaty shipping article, the expenses of earning it could not be split off. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
• DIT v Morgan Stanley & Co Inc Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  Our Indian affiliate is paid at arm's length. Can more profit still be attributed to a PE?
  No, provided the transfer pricing analysis takes into account all the risk-taking functions of the entity that also constitutes the permanent establishment. Anything further would tax the same profits twice. On the facts, back-office work was preparatory or auxiliary and created no fixed place or agency PE, but deputing employees to work in India created a service PE.
• CIT v Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  I am a foreign company on a turnkey contract. I fabricated the platform abroad and only installed it in India. Can the Department tax the offshore fabrication profit because the contract was one indivisible whole?
  No, on these facts. The Supreme Court held that an installation permanent establishment comes into existence only at the installation stage, which is after the equipment has been sold and delivered abroad, so profits on the offshore supply are not attributable to it. Under Article 7 what is taxed is not the real profit but the hypothetical profit the permanent establishment would have made as a wholly independent enterprise, so nothing can be attributed on the supply unless the Department shows the price was not at arm's length or included an element for the establishment's services. On quantum, ten per cent of the Indian gross receipts was upheld.
• Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd v DIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  Our turnkey contract has offshore supply and offshore services alongside Indian work. Is the whole contract taxable in India?
  No — a composite turnkey contract can be split. Profits on equipment supplied and paid for outside India, where title passes outside India, are outside the Indian charge, because the contract being signed in India is immaterial and there must be a sufficient territorial nexus. On offshore services the Court read s.9(1)(vii) as requiring the services to be both utilised in India and rendered in India; that second requirement has since been removed retrospectively by statute, so only the offshore supply holding survives on the domestic law side.
• CIT v P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I am resident in India but my rubber estate and my business are in Malaysia. The treaty says that income may be taxed there. Can India tax it as well?
  No, on this treaty. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals and held that neither the business income from the Malaysian rubber plantations nor the capital gain on the sale of the Malaysian property could be taxed in India. The property was in Malaysia, the permanent establishment was in Malaysia and there was none in India, so the closer personal and economic relations determined fiscal domicile and residence in India became irrelevant. Capital gains is income arising out of immovable property for the purposes of the Act, so Article 6 covered it. The Court declined to decide the semantic question whether may be taxed allocates the taxing power or merely permits it.
• Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  My investor is a Mauritius company held by people in a third country. Can the Department refuse it the treaty benefit on the ground that this is treaty shopping?
  No, not on that ground alone. The Supreme Court held that a resident of a third state taking advantage of a treaty between two others is not by itself illegal. If the treaty carries no limitation of benefits clause, there is no disabling condition to be read into it, and the motive with which the entity was incorporated is irrelevant. The Court also rejected the argument that avoidance of double taxation requires tax actually to be paid in one of the two states: an exemption agreed in a treaty operates whether or not the other state taxes. The Court declined to lift the corporate veil where the treaty had been made applicable by section 90.
• GE Energy Parts Inc v CIT High CourtHelps department
  Our Indian group company only markets and supports. Can the department call it our dependent agent PE?
  Yes, on these facts. Where the personnel working out of the Indian premises do more than liaise — where they take part in technical and financial negotiation and in price negotiation with the customer — the Tribunal's finding of both a fixed place permanent establishment and a dependent agent permanent establishment stands. The Delhi High Court affirmed the Tribunal and dismissed the appeals.
• National Petroleum Construction Company v DIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I am a UAE company that fabricates offshore platforms abroad and installs them in India. My installation ran under nine months with a long break in the middle. Do I have a permanent establishment here?
  No. The Delhi High Court held the UAE company had no permanent establishment in India for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Under Article 5(2)(h) of the India-UAE treaty the nine-month test looks to the period the enterprise is actually involved at the site; a long interruption when the assessee had no access to the site is excluded, and the installation activity lasted only from November 2006 to April 2007. The Indian consultant was an agent of independent status acting in its ordinary course of business, with no authority to conclude contracts, so it was no dependent agent permanent establishment. The assessment orders and the Tribunal's orders were set aside.
• Serco BPO Pvt Ltd v Authority for Advance Rulings High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I bought shares of an Indian company from two Mauritius sellers holding valid tax residency certificates. Must I withhold tax on the price, and can the Authority refuse a ruling by calling the structure tax avoidance?
  No withholding was required. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the Authority's order declining a ruling under section 245R and, rather than remand, decided the questions itself. It held the Mauritius sellers were residents of Mauritius on their certificates of residence, which the Revenue could not go behind, that 'liable to taxation' in Article 4 does not mean tax actually paid, and that under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius treaty gains on alienation of property other than that in paragraphs 1 to 3 — which includes shares, with no limitation by situs — are taxable only in Mauritius. No capital gains tax was payable and the purchaser was not liable to withhold under section 195.
• Centrica India Offshore P Ltd v CIT High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  We have people seconded to us from our overseas group companies, they work under our control, and we only reimburse their salary cost — do we still have to withhold tax under section 195?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court held on 25 April 2014 that the overseas group companies remained the real employers of the secondees, so what they supplied was the service of trained personnel, not a bare loan of staff. The payment was fees for technical services under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA and, because the secondees passed their quality-control know-how on to the Indian staff, made-available services under Article 12 of the India-Canada DTAA. The overseas entities also had a service permanent establishment. Calling the payment a reimbursement, and charging no mark-up, made no difference. Section 195 applied and the writ petition was dismissed.
• DIT v Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  We pay reinsurance brokerage to an overseas broker who places our risk in the Lloyd's market — is that fees for technical services under the India-UK treaty?
  No, on these facts. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal on 23 April 2012, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal had found on the evidence that the overseas reinsurance broker was doing no more than acting as an intermediary — obtaining competitive proposals from Lloyd's syndicates, passing communications, submitting the slip to the market for signing and administering claims — and that nothing was made available to the Indian insurer within Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA. The High Court held those to be findings of fact, and counsel for the Revenue could point to no perversity in them, so section 260A gave no scope to interfere.
• CIT v De Beers India Minerals P Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  We paid for technical services but learnt nothing from them. Is it still fees for technical services?
  No, where the treaty carries a make available condition. The service must be aimed at and result in transmitting the technical knowledge, skill or process, so that it stays with the recipient after the contract ends and can be used independently. Delivering the fruit of the expertise, here survey data and maps, is not enough.
• Rolls Royce Plc v DIT (International Taxation) High CourtCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  My foreign company sells to Indian customers through its Indian subsidiary, which I pay on a cost-plus basis. If that subsidiary is treated as my permanent establishment, is the cost-plus fee the end of it?
  No. The Delhi High Court held that where the Indian subsidiary is the permanent establishment and carries on the core marketing, negotiating and selling functions, an arm's length cost-plus remuneration to it does not exhaust the tax. Profits of the foreign enterprise attributable to the Indian operations remain chargeable, and the Court upheld the Tribunal's functional apportionment of global profit - 50 per cent to manufacturing, 15 per cent to research and development, and the balance 35 per cent to marketing carried out in India. Both the assessee's appeals and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
• DIT v Sheraton International Inc High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  My foreign company runs worldwide advertising, publicity and reservations for Indian hotels using my brand. Is my fee royalty or fees for included services, or is it business profits?
  Business profits, and not taxable here for want of a permanent establishment. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Tribunal. The main service was advertisement, publicity and sales promotion for the hotels worldwide; the use of the trademark, trade name and stylised S mark, the reservation interface and the loyalty programmes were all incidental to that integrated business arrangement, not separate services. So the fee was neither royalty under section 9(1)(vi) with Explanation 2 nor fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) with Explanation 2, nor taxable under Article 12 of the India-USA treaty. With no permanent establishment, Article 7 kept it out of the Indian net.
• Clifford Chance v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  My UK firm advised on Indian projects, partly from London and partly on visits to India, and our partners were here more than 90 days. Is the whole fee taxable in India?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that only the income attributable to services actually performed in India is chargeable, measured on the firm's hourly billing for work done in India. Article 15 of the India-UK treaty taxes an individual, including a member of a partnership, in the other State only if he performs services there and is present 90 days or more, and then only so much of the income as is attributable to those services. Under section 9(1)(vii)(c) the services must be both rendered in India and utilised in India, and territorial nexus does not permit the whole of a composite fee to be treated as arising in every jurisdiction touched.
• Vestas Wind Technology India P Ltd v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The AO disallowed interest paid to my foreign parent under s.94B. Does the treaty help?
  It did here. Section 94B restricts deduction only where the lender is a non-resident associated enterprise and not where the lender is domestic, which the Tribunal held is discrimination caught by Article 24(4) of the India-Denmark treaty; the treaty prevailed and the entire disallowance was deleted, including the amount the assessee had disallowed itself.
• Sky High Appeal XLIII Leasing v ACIT ITATHelps taxpayer
  Can the officer apply the PPT to my India-Ireland treaty claim just because both countries signed the MLI?
  No, on this Tribunal's view. The India-Ireland treaty is a covered tax agreement under the MLI, but the Tribunal held that no MLI provision — including the PPT — can be given effect in India without a separate notification under s.90(1), and none had been issued. The treaty benefits on aircraft lease rentals were allowed, the Tribunal also holding the lessors had no permanent establishment in India and that Article 8 covers the rental of aircraft in international traffic.
• DCIT v M. Mahadevan ITATHelps department
  The Assessing Officer has computed my days in India from immigration records instead of the stamps in my passport. Can he go behind the passport like that?
  Yes, on this decision. The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal upheld the officer's reliance on data of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office in preference to passport stamps, holding that the agency is mandated to keep data of entry and exit on a real-time basis and that, being a Central Government agency, its data cannot be suspected or doubted. It also held that the burden lies on the assessee to prove by demonstrative evidence that his case falls outside section 6, and that having overseas business and travelling does not by itself put him outside Indian tax. A tax residency certificate from the UAE, obtained in 2021 for earlier years, did not displace the domestic computation.
• SC Lowy P I (LUX) v ACIT ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The AO calls my Luxembourg fund a conduit and invokes the PPT. Is a TRC and some substance enough to answer that?
  Yes, on these facts, but not for the reason this entry previously gave. The Tribunal allowed the India-Luxembourg treaty benefits because the tax residency certificate was valid and unquestioned and the Assessing Officer brought no cogent material to show that the company was in substance a conduit - only views and presumptions. It applied the Delhi High Court's propositions on tax residency certificates, held that the burden of establishing that obtaining a benefit was one of the principal purposes lies on the revenue, and found that burden unmet on a record showing a Luxembourg company that filed and paid tax there, bore real operating costs and held 13.95 per cent of its portfolio in India.
• Saket Kanoi v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The officer says my client pays no tax in Dubai, so the India-UAE agreement cannot apply to him. Is that right?
  No. The Delhi Tribunal held that a resident of the UAE is entitled to the benefit of the India-UAE agreement even though the UAE levies no tax on him. Being 'liable to tax' in a Contracting State does not require that tax was actually paid; it is enough that the State has the right to tax, whether or not the right is exercised. The Assessing Officer's reasoning that there was no double taxation, so no relief was due, was rejected.
• Ashok Kumar Pandey v ACIT ITATHelps department
  I am resident in both India and the US. Which country wins under the treaty tie-breaker?
  India, on these facts. A permanent home being available in both countries, the Tribunal went to the centre of vital interests and held that personal and economic relations taken together pointed to India — spouse and children here, and active involvement in an Indian company as against passive US holdings. The US-source income was accordingly taxable in India.
• Tiger Global Eight Holdings v Dy CIT ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The AO says my Mauritius holding structure is treaty shopping. Is my TRC enough to answer that?
  It is enough unless the officer rebuts it with evidence. The TRC is statutory evidence of residential status, so the burden is on the Assessing Officer to displace it with cogent material; holding the assessee to be treaty shopping on suspicion and inferences did not meet that standard, and the Article 13(4) exemption was allowed.
• Sameer Malhotra v ACIT ITATHelps taxpayer
  I moved to Singapore with my family. Can the AO's tie-breaker questionnaire alone make me an Indian resident?
  No. A tie-breaker questionnaire is an important aid but cannot be the exclusive basis for the conclusion, and permanence of a home is assessed qualitatively as well as by duration, so a flat taken on rent abroad can be a permanent home. The Tribunal decided the tie-breaker principally on the centre of vital interests - the assessee had moved to Singapore with his family to earn there, so his personal and economic relations for that period were in Singapore - with habitual abode offered as an additional reason. The addition of global income was deleted and the Assessing Officer directed to accept the revised return.
• Brinda Ramakrishna v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I filed Form 67 late and my foreign tax credit was disallowed. Does missing the deadline kill the claim?
  No, on this decision. The Bangalore Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of foreign tax credit where Form 67 is filed late; filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory; and the treaty overrides the Act, with the Rules unable to run contrary to the Act. The assessee had claimed credit of Rs 4,73,779 for Australian tax under section 90 read with Article 24 of the India-Australia treaty, filed Form 67 only on 18 April 2020, and had the credit refused. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, and also held the point could be taken in rectification proceedings under section 154.
• Dy CIT v Kumar Sanjeev Ranjan ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I was resident of both countries for part of the year. Can the treaty put me in the other country for that part only?
  In practical effect yes, but the decision is thinner authority than it looks. The Assessing Officer had taxed the salary the assessee earned in the United States after returning there in August 2012. The first appellate authority applied the second limb of Article 4 of the India-United States agreement, found the centre of vital interests closer to the United States for that period, held him a resident of the United States for it and deleted the addition. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on two grounds only: that the first appellate authority had not based his conclusion on the residency certificate, so no question of fresh evidence arose, and that no finding under s.6(1)(c) was called for because residency was being determined under Article 4. It never adjudicated the proposition that split residency is available.
• eBay International AG v ADIT ITATHelps taxpayer
  We charge Indian sellers a fee for listing on our overseas marketplace. Is that fees for technical services, and do our Indian support companies make us taxable here?
  No on both, and note how the second answer is reached. Providing a platform on which others transact is not the rendering of managerial, technical or consultancy services, so the user fees are not fees for technical services. On the treaty the Tribunal accepted that the Indian group companies, working exclusively for the Swiss company, were dependent agents - the assessee lost that limb - but held that a dependent agent becomes a permanent establishment only if it performs one of the functions listed in Article 5(5), and marketing and collection work is not among them. They were not a place of management either. Without a permanent establishment the business profits article keeps the income out of the Indian charge.
• Raymond Ltd v DCIT ITATCuts both ways
  We paid a UK merchant bank commission for managing our GDR issue. Does 'fees for technical services' in the treaty catch it, so that we had to deduct tax under section 195?
  No, on the Tribunal's reading of the treaty. The Mumbai Tribunal held that Article 13.4(c) of the India-UK treaty is not satisfied by merely rendering technical or consultancy services. The services must also make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, meaning the recipient must be able to apply them himself afterwards without going back to the provider. The lead manager's work on the GDR issue left Raymond with nothing of that kind once the issue closed. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the managers had bought the GDRs and resold them, and held that the UK treaty applied.
• In re Morgan Stanley and Co. International Limited Advance RulingHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  We are a UK company registered as an FII, trading index and stock futures and options on Indian exchanges through brokers and custodians. Is that income taxable in India?
  No. The Authority ruled that the income derived by Morgan Stanley and Co. International Limited, a UK resident, from trading in exchange-traded derivative instruments in India would not be taxable in India under the India-UK agreement. It held first that income from derivative trading is business income and not capital gains, derivative contracts being excluded from the definition of capital asset. Business profits are taxable in India only through a permanent establishment, and the brokers, custodians and bankers the applicant used were independent agents acting for many clients in the ordinary course of their business, so no permanent establishment arose under article 5. The ruling binds only that applicant.
• In re Cyril Eugene Pereira Advance RulingHelps departmentSuperseded by amendment
  I live and work in the UAE, where individuals pay no income tax. Can I claim the India-UAE treaty on my Indian dividends, interest and capital gains?
  No, on the Authority's 1999 view. It ruled that the applicant, permanently resident in Abu Dhabi, could not be treated as a resident of the UAE under article 4 of the India-UAE agreement, because article 4(1) requires liability to tax in that State and the UAE imposes no income tax on individuals. It followed that he could not claim the reduced rates on dividends and interest under articles 10(2)(b) and 11(2)(b), and that the capital gains protection in article 13(3) was unavailable, so the gains remained taxable in India under domestic law. The reasoning has not survived; the ruling bound only the applicant.
• In re Advance Ruling No. P-9 of 1995 Advance RulingHelps departmentSuperseded by amendment
  Two Mauritius companies my UK parent set up hold shares in an Indian bank. Can we get the India-Mauritius treaty rate on the dividends and exemption on the eventual share gains?
  No, and the Authority refused to rule at all. It accepted that the two Mauritius companies were residents of Mauritius under article 4, their effective management being there and not in India, so that on the face of the treaty article 13(4) would leave gains on the shares taxable only in Mauritius. But it then rejected both applications under clause (c) of the proviso to section 245R(2), holding the arrangement prima facie designed for the avoidance of income-tax: newly formed Mauritius subsidiaries wholly owned by a British bank served no purpose the bank could not serve by investing directly. The rejection binds only those applicants.
• In re Mohsinally Alimohammed Rafik Advance RulingHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  I am an Indian citizen who has lived in Dubai for years and I hold Indian shares and debentures. Can I claim the India-UAE treaty on my dividends, interest and capital gains?
  Yes. The Authority ruled that the applicant, a non-resident who had lived in Dubai for seventeen years, was a resident of the UAE for the India-UAE agreement. Article 4(1) asks whether a person is liable to tax under a State's laws because of a nexus with it, not whether tax is in fact collected; and on the tie-breaker his permanent home, his closer personal and economic relations and his habitual abode were all in Dubai. Gains on his Indian movable property were therefore taxable only in the UAE under article 13(3), dividends capped at 15 per cent under article 10 and interest at 12.5 per cent under article 11. When the assets were acquired made no difference.
• CBDT Circular 1/2025 on the Principal Purpose Test CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  The officer says the PPT in the MLI destroys my Mauritius capital gains exemption on shares bought in 2015. Does the Board's own circular help?
  Yes, on both points. The Board says the PPT is intended to apply prospectively — from the date the treaty or protocol carrying it enters into force, or from the MLI's entry into effect for that treaty under Article 35 — and that the grandfathering provisions in the India-Cyprus, India-Mauritius and India-Singapore treaties stay outside the PPT altogether and are governed by the treaties' own clauses. It also tells officers to treat the exercise as fact-specific and case-by-case rather than as a rule of thumb.
• DGIT(Systems) notification of 28.03.2023 on Form 10F CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  My foreign payee has no PAN and cannot file Form 10F online. Is his treaty claim lost?
  No. E-filing of Form 10F was made compulsory by DGIT(Systems) Notification No. 3 of 2022 dated 16 July 2022, but non-residents who had no PAN and were not required to have one were exempted from e-filing — first until 31 March 2023 and, by this notification, until 30 September 2023 — and could file Form 10F manually as before. From October 2023 the portal added a registration category for non-residents not holding and not required to hold a PAN, which allowed such payees to e-file.
• CBDT Circular 2/2021 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  I was stranded in India by the COVID flight ban in FY 2020-21. Am I resident now?
  There is no blanket relief, but the Board did not refuse one either. On the representations for a relaxation of the day count for previous year 2020-21, the Board concluded that on the Act read with the tax treaties there does not appear to be a possibility of double taxation for that year, and it reserved the relaxation question: individuals who are in fact being taxed twice were asked to furnish the information in Form-NR by 31 March 2021, and the Board said that after understanding those situations it would examine whether any relaxation is required and, if it is, whether a general relaxation can be given for a class of individuals or a specific one in individual cases. Along the way the circular sets out the day-count thresholds for the year, and makes the point that an individual who became resident because of exceptional circumstances would most likely be not ordinarily resident.
• EPCOS Electronic Components SA v UOI High CourtHelps taxpayerOverruled
  My return was accepted as filed and no demand was raised. Is a s.264 revision still open to me?
  Yes. An intimation under s.143(1) that simply accepts the return is still an order capable of revision, and 'prejudicial to the interest of the assessee' does not mean 'raised a demand'. The prejudice was that the assessee had paid more than the applicable treaty provisions required, even though the tax computed in the intimation was unchanged.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.