ABN Amro Bank NV v. Asst. Director of Income-tax

BNP PARIBAS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

…ced on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand CIT (Central) 24 (TR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the 7 8 M/s.BNP Paribas. interest paid by the Indian branches of the assessee bank to its head office and overseas branches was chargeable to ta…

BNP PARIBAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 1(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bnp Paribas V. Acit (International Taxation) 1 North Avenue, Maker Maxity Circle – 1(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 1810A, 18Th Floor Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacb4868Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

…on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT (Central) 24 ITR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the interest paid by the Indian branches of the assessee bank to its head office and overseas branches was chargeable to tax in India. Accordin…

BNP PARIBAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONL TAXATION)CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…ced on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand CIT (Central) 24 (TR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the 9 BNP Paribas interest paid by the Indian branches of the assessee bank to its head office and overseas branches was chargeable to tax in Ind…

BNP PARIBAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 1(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…ced on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand CIT (Central) 24 (TR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the interest paid by the Indian branches of the assessee bank to its head office and overseas branches was chargeable to tax in India. Accordingl…

BNP PARIBAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…ced on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand CIT (Central) 24 (TR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the interest paid by the Indian branches of the assessee bank to its head office and overseas branches was chargeable to tax in India. Accordingl…

DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT SUISSE AG, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

…elating to assessee's claim for deduction on account of interest payable by its Indian branches to the head office was squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Kolkatta Special Bench of ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV v. Asstt. DIT [2005] 98 TTJ 295/97 ITD 89 wherein it was held that identity of head office and the branch being same, there cannot be any expenditure in case of Indian branches for the interest payable to the head office. Following the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV (supra), he held that interest payable by the Indian branches of the assessee bank…

BNP PARIBAS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)- RANGE 1(3)(1), , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Bnp Paribas Deputy Commissioner Of Income Bnp Paribas House,1 North Tax (International Taxation) Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Range – 1(3)(1), R. No.527, Vs. 5Th Floor, Air India Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan – Aaacb4868Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri F.V. Irani, A.R Respondent By: Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2021 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Dated 30.10.2017 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

…f Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT (Central) 24 ITR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of ITA No.7458/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 7 M/s BNP Paribas Vs. DCIT (IT) Range-1(3)(1) the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the interest paid by the Indian branches of the assessee bank to its head office and overseas branches was chargeable to tax in India. Accordin…

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Barclays Bank Plc, Additional Director Of 801-808, Ceejay House, Income Tax (International Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. Taxation)-3, Worli, Scindia House, Mumbai – 400 018 Ballard Pier, Pan: Aaacu 1414F Mumbai - 400038 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Additional Director Of M/S. Barclays Bank Plc, Income Tax (International 21/23, Maker Chambers Taxation)-3, Vi, Ddit (It)-3(2), Vs. Nariman Point, Scindia House, Mumbai – 21 R.No.132, 1St Floor, Pan: Aaacb 4876G N.M. Road, Mumbai - 400038 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Avaneesh Tiwari, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2020 O R D E R

…before making payment to the head office/overseas branches. 5. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) who in view of circular No.740 of 1996 issued by CBDT and decision of Special Bench of Kolkata ITAT in the case of ABM Import Bank 98 TTJ 295 (215) affirmed the disallowance. 3 ITA No.2941/M/2010 & ITA No.2117/M/2011 M/s. Barclays Bank PLC 6. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.178/M/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 & other vide order dated 12.0…

BNP PARIBAS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bnp Paribas, Deputy Commissioner Of Bnp Paribas House, Income Tax (International Vs. 1 North Avenue, Taxation)-1(3)(1), Mumbai Maker Maxity Room No. 110, First Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Scindia House, Ballard Estate Bandra (East) Mumbai- Mumbai-400038. 400051. Pan No. Aaacb4868Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farrokh Irani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Samuel Darse, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2019

…on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CT (Central) 24 ITR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the interest paid by the Indian branches of the assessee bank to its head office and overseas branches was chargeable to tax in India. Accordin…

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) 3, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed and the appeals of the AO are dismissed

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं अमरजीत अमरजीत "सह "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं अमरजीत अमरजीत "सह "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./178/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपी…

BNP PRIBAS SA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 3, MUMBAI

…on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CT (Central) 24 ITR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the interest paid by the Indian branches of the assessee bank to its head office and overseas branches was chargeable to tax in India. Accordin…

BNP PARIBAS SA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (IT) RG 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

…on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CT (Central) 24 ITR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the interest paid by the Indian branches of the assessee bank to its head office and overseas branches was chargeable to tax in India. Accordin…

BNP PARIBAS SA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (IT) RG 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

…on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CT (Central) 24 ITR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the interest paid by the Indian branches of the assessee bank to its head office and overseas branches was chargeable to tax in India. Accordin…