ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE 2 & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1196/2007HC DelhiDLHC01146857200707 May 2026Author: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous judgment in ITA 32/2004, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The question of law framed at the time of admitting the appeal was answered in the negative and in favor of the appellant-assessee. The impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 12.01.2007, was set aside to the extent of the question framed. The reasoning was based on the principle of precedent, where a matter already decided by a higher court or a coordinate bench, and affirmed by the Supreme Court, binds the current bench. The ratio decidendi is that if tax on salaries paid to expatriate employees overseas is paid in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 685, such payments are permissible as a deduction in the computation of taxable business income, notwithstanding Section 40(a)(iii) and Article 7 of the Indo-UK DTAA, as per the established judicial pronouncements. The operative direction was to set aside the ITAT order and allow the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by ANZ Grindlays Bank against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year is not explicitly stated, but the appeal pertains to the year 2007. The core issue revolves around the deductibility of salaries paid to expatriate employees overseas, on which tax was paid as per CBDT Circular No. 685 dated 12.8.94. The assessee contended that this deduction should be allowed in computing taxable business income, while the revenue argued against it, citing Section 40(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Article 7 of the Indo-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty. The High Court had admitted the appeal and framed a specific question of law. The assessee's counsel pointed out that this exact issue was decided in their favor in a previous case, ITA 32/2004, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that salaries paid to expatriate employees overseas on which tax was paid in accordance with Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 685 dated 12.8.94, is not permissible as a deduction in computation of taxable business income in view of the provisions of Section 40(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Article 7 of the Indo-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the issue is squarely covered by the High Court's judgment in their own case, ITA 32/2004, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. They relied on this precedent for their claim that the salaries paid to expatriate employees overseas, with tax paid as per the circular, should be allowed as a deduction. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's counsel was not in a position to dispute the fact that the very same issue had been decided by the High Court in the appellant's previous case and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, they did not present any arguments against the assessee's position.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1196/2007 ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shashi M. Kapila, Mr. Pravesh Sharma & Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE 2 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr..Sanjeev Menon & Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs and Ms. Priya Sarkar & Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R %

07.05.

2026 CM APPL. 30518/2026 (early hearing)

1.

An application seeking early hearing of the matter has been moved stating that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in ITA 32/2004 titled as ANZ Grindlays Bank (now Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd.) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. which has been affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.26733/2016. 2. Considering that the matter pertains to the year 2007 and the case is otherwise covered, we allow the application.

3.

The matter is taken up for consideration today itself. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 12:34:09

ITA 1196/2007

4.

While admitting the appeal, vide order dated 25.02.2008 was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the following question was framed:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that salaries paid to ex- patriate employees overseas on which tax was paid in accordance with Central board of Direct Taxes Circular No.685 dated 12.8.94, is not permissible as a deduction in computation of taxable business income in view of the provisions of Section 40(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Article 7 of the Indo-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty?”

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the very same issue in appellant’s own case has been decided by this Court vide its judgment dated 01.03.2016 passed in ITA 32/2004. The relevant paragraph of said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“19. It is also relevant to note that sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 40 was further substituted by sub-clauses (i), (ia) and (ib) by virtue of Finance Act (No.2) w.e.f. 1 st April, 2005. However, the precondition for depositing the tax within the time prescribed under Section (i) of Section 200 was retained in sub-clause (i) and (ia). Thereafter, by virtue of Finance Act (No.2), 2014, sub clause (i) was further amended and the principal condition of depositing tax in respect of payments made in India was amended and instead of the precondition of depositing the tax within the time prescribed under Section 200 (i) of the Act, it was now stipulated that the tax be deposited "on or before the due date specified in sub section (i) of Section 139”

6.

She further submitted that the department had preferred a Special This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 12:34:09

Leave Petition against such judgment but the same has been disposed of in light of the tax effect involved in the appeal.

7.

Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute that the very same issue stands decided by this Court vide judgment dated 01.03.2016, which has been affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well.

8.

Hence, the present appeal is allowed in light of the order dated 01.03.2016 passed in the appellant’s own case. The question mentioned in paragraph no.5 above is answered in negative and in favour of the appellant- assessee. The impugned order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench “E”, New Delhi is set aside to the extent of the question framed.

9.

Consequence to follow.

10.

The appeal is allowed accordingly

DINESH MEHTA, J

AMIT MAHAJAN, J MAY 7, 2026 kk

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 12:34:09

More judgments on Section 40(a)(iii)

All 35 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →