DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

ITA 1165/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 March 2025AY 2011-1267 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided that the TPO's order for AY 2010-11 was indeed passed beyond the prescribed time limit, following the Madras High Court's ruling in *Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT*, and therefore quashed the TPO's order. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the tax liability on interest received under Section 244A for AY 2019-20 by applying the rates as per the India-France DTAA, respectfully following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. Regarding TDS credit on income tax refund for AY 2019-20, the AO was directed to examine and allow credit in accordance with law. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal noted that most issues were common to AY 2018-19 and would be decided mutatis mutandis. Several grounds for AY 2019-20 were dismissed as not pressed (Grounds 1, 10, 15), and others were deemed consequential (Grounds 13, 18-20). The appeals for AY 2010-11 to 2019-20 filed by the assessee were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, a non-resident French bank with Indian branches, appealed against the final assessment orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 to 2019-20. The Revenue also filed appeals for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12. The core of the dispute involved transfer pricing adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the subsequent assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO). For AY 2010-11, the AO's draft assessment included a TP adjustment of Rs. 51,00,76,850 and income of branches assessed at Rs. 131,62,22,653. Following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the AO's final assessment for AY 2010-11 computed total income at Rs. 404,21,58,617 and branch income at Rs. 132,78,88,740. The assessee argued that many issues were covered by previous Tribunal orders and High Court decisions. The Revenue conceded that most issues had been decided in preceding years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2010-11 is barred by limitation, as argued by the assessee, relying on the decision in *Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT*. The Revenue did not present specific arguments on this point. 2. Whether the interest received under Section 244A of the Act for AY 2019-20 should be taxed at the rate prescribed in Article 12 of the India-France DTAA, as contended by the assessee, following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier AYs, which upheld the Tribunal's direction to consider the DTAA. The Revenue's stance on this specific issue for AY 2019-20 is not explicitly recorded. 3. Whether TDS credit towards tax deducted on income tax refund for AY 2019-20 should be allowed, as directed by the Tribunal to be examined by the AO in accordance with law. The Revenue's specific argument on this is not detailed. 4. Whether various expenses incurred by the Head Office/Overseas Branches towards credit risk assistance, EDP assistance, and information system charges on behalf of the Indian Branch for AY 2019-20 are disallowable, as contended by the assessee. The Revenue's argument is not recorded. 5. Whether fees for technical services towards credit risk evaluation and software services paid/payable by Indian Branches to the Head Office for AY 2019-20 are taxable, as contended by the assessee. The Revenue's argument is not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA,Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 244A,Section 234B,Section 274,Section 270A,Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(13)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T. (TP) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Formerly known as 'Calyon Bank') 11th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AACCC3872B Vs. DCIT (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1st Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038.

Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ADIT (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1st Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038.

Appellant)

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Vs.11th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AACCC3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Formerly known as 'Calyon Bank') 11th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AACCC3872B Vs. DCIT (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1st Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038.

Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT (Intern

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 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →