M/S. CITI BANK N.A.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL DIT (IT) RG-1, MUMBAI

ITA 4970/MUM/2007Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 2026AY 2002-200342 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Citi Bank N.A., a non-resident banking company, and the Revenue are in appeal before the ITAT Mumbai Bench against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-XXXI for Assessment Year 2002-03. The assessment involved various claims related to banking operations and international transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions and disallowances, including for broken period interest, disallowance under Section 14A, overseas training expenditure, bad debts, notional profit on forward exchange contracts, interest paid to overseas branches, and voluntary retirement scheme payments. The case also involved transfer pricing adjustments proposed by the TPO amounting to Rs.16,23,37,928/- for international transactions concerning money market loans, ECB/Trade Loans facilitation, correspondent banking, derivative transactions, and supervisory functions. The Ld.CIT(A) granted partial relief on some issues, including transfer pricing adjustments.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for issue 1 & 2 (broken period interest), the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in allowing the claim. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case and the Bombay High Court's decision in American Express Banking Corp., affirming that where securities are treated as stock-in-trade, broken period interest is allowable as revenue expenditure. The factual position that securities constituted stock-in-trade was not controverted. For issue 3 (supervisory/oversight functions), the Tribunal held that these functions did not constitute a separate international transaction warranting an independent remuneration. The employees' activities were incidental to their primary employment in India. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of dedicated personnel or specific expenditure for rendering independent services, nor was there an identifiable service availed by overseas branches for which a charge would arise. The revenue-based allocation by the TPO was insufficient to establish a separate transaction or benefit. The Tribunal deleted the adjustment sustained by the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, Assessee's Ground No. 15 was allowed, and Revenue's Ground No. 9 was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction of Rs. 89,38,56,853/- on account of broken period interest (Revenue Ground No. 1). 2. Whether, if the disallowance of broken period interest on securities purchased during the year but remaining unsold at the year end is sustained, deduction thereof should, in any event, be granted at the time when the securities are sold (Cross Objection No. 1). 3. Whether the supervisory/oversight functions performed by certain employees of the Indian branch in relation to the Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal branches constitute a separate international transaction warranting an independent remuneration on a cost-plus basis (Assessee Ground No. 15, Revenue Ground No. 9). Assessee's contentions: For issue 1 & 2, the assessee argued that the issue is concluded in its favour by the Supreme Court in its own case for AY 1997-98 and by the decision in Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. CIT. Securities were held as stock-in-trade, and broken period interest is allowable as revenue expenditure. For issue 3, the assessee contended that supervisory functions were incidental to principal responsibilities in India, not a separate international transaction. Reliance was placed on the decision in ADIT v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. The cost base for any adjustment was also disputed. Revenue's contentions: For issue 1 & 2, the Revenue relied on the assessment order, arguing that broken period interest for unsold securities was not allowable as revenue deduction. For issue 3, the Revenue proposed transfer pricing adjustments based on salary and overhead costs allocated on a revenue ratio basis, and a mark-up.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 44C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA 4970/MUM/2007
ITA 4981/MUM/2007

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई पीठें, म ुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: I BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 4970/MUM/2007 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2002-2003) M/S. CITI BANK N.A. THE ADDL DIT (IT) RG-1 5TH FLOOR, PLOT C-61, THE ADDL DIT (IT) RG-1 BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, G MUMBAI-, MAHARASHTRA BLOCK , BANDRA (E),, Vs. MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

PAN of Assessee: AAACC0462F

Mr. P.J.Pardiwala, Sr. अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented Adv./Harsh Shah & Shreyas by: Sardesai प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Rajendra Jaipal-Sr. DR ITA 4981/MUM/2007 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2002-2003) THE DY DIT (IT) 1(2) M/S CITI BANK N.A R.NO.119, IST FLOOR, SCINDIA 5TH FLOOR, CITI BANK HOUSE, BALLARD PIER,, CENTRE, C-61, BANDRA- MUMBAI-400038, KURLA COMPLEX, G- Vs. MAHARASHTRA BLOCK, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

PAN of Assessee: AAACC0462F

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Rajendra Jaipal-Sr. DR Mr. P.J.Pardiwala, Sr. प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented Adv./Harsh

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →