Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH
Indian Bank, The Dy. Commissioner of Accounts Department, Income Tax, Corporate Office, 254-260 Vs. Corporate Circle-2(1), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [PAN: AAACI-1607-G] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./थ+ की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : These four appeals filed by the assessee are arising out of common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 29.12.2022 in the matter of assessments framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [A.O] u/s.143(3) / 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 23.12.2017, 16.03.2018, 22.02.2019 & 27.04.2021, respectively. to 158/Chny/2023 :- 2 -:
The common issue involved in the all four appeals of assessee is as regards to whether income from foreign branches of the assesse bank is to be included in total income of the assessee. As the grounds raised
are identical, the appeals are decided by common order. The relevant grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015- 16 reads as under:
1. Income from Foreign Branches – Rs. 129,65,45,949/- That on facts and as well as on law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the decision of Assessing Officer by bringing to tax the income of foreign branches notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiyar. The CIT(A) should have found that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court read with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), it is not open to him to tax the income from foreign branches amounting to Rs. 129,65,45,949/ -“
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee bank has branches at Singapore and Colombo, outside India and claimed the income from foreign branches as exempt from taxes in India relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar Vs. CIT 267 ITR 654 (SC). The A.O has held that the income of the assessee at Singapore and Colombo branches would be included in the return of income as it is basic tenet that for a resident in India the global income is taxable in India. The AO has also relied upon CBDT notification under section 90(3) in S No to 158/Chny/2023 :- 3 -:
2123(E) dated 28th August 2008 and the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in & 1397/Mds/2014 dated 30.11.2015 for A.Ys 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition relying upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.1877/Chny/2015 vide order dated 11.03.2016.
The Ld. A.R and the Ld. D.R have fairly accepted that this issue is squarely covered against the assessee in its own case in 739 & 2155/Chny/2017 for A.Ys 2012-13 to 2014-15 vide order dated 28.08.2019.
We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bank of India, Mumbai vs ACIT in & 2048/Mum/2019 for A.Y 2015-16 vide order dated 11th December, 2020 has considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar Vs. CIT, supra, and has observed as under :
“ 11. The effect of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Kulandagan Chettiar's case (supra) thus was clearly overruled by the legislative developments. It was specifically legislated that the mere fact of taxability in the treaty partner jurisdiction will not take it out of the ambit of taxable income of an assessee in India and that "such income shall be included in his total income chargeable to tax in India to 158/Chny/2023 :- 4 -: in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and relief shall be granted in accordance with the method for elimination or avoidance of double taxation provided in such agreement". A coordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Essar Oil Ltd (supra) also proceeded to hold that this notification was retrospective in effect in as much as it applied with effect from 1st April 2004 i.e. the date on which sub-section 3 was introduced in Section 90. “
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in 739 & 2155/Chny/2017 for A.Ys 2012-13 to 2014-15 vide order dated 28.08.2019 has dismissed the assessee’s appeal and held that income of the assessee at Singapore and Colombo would be included in the return of income of the assessee in India. As the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in assessee’s own case, the finding of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed. Hence, this ground of appeal of assessee stands dismissed.
We find that the identical issue is involved in assessee’s appeal in 157, 158/Chny/2023 for A.Ys 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19, our finding is mutatis mutandis applies to A.Ys 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 as well. Hence, these appeals in ITA Nos.156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 are also dismissed. to 158/Chny/2023 :- 5 -:
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in 156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 are dismissed.
Order pronounced on 29th May, 2024.