DIT v. Credit Agricole Indosuez

377 ITR 102High Court2015#4209 most cited

What is DIT v. Credit Agricole Indosuez authority for?

Interest earned from the tax department is to be assessed in accordance with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Credit Agricole Indosuez · 377 ITR 102 · Bombay High Court · interest on tax refund · DTAA Article 11(2) · assessment of interest income · tax department refund

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 144C(13)Section 1961: Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

economic adjustmentsection 44csection 44dasection 10(15)section 256(1)interest on refundsection 115osection 44bbsection 256section 10(33)section 92c(2)section 244

Judgments citing DIT v. Credit Agricole Indosuez

Aker Solutions India Sdn Bhd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)- Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1004/मुं/2022("न.व .2016-17) Aker Solutions India Sdn Bhd Level 16 Integra Towers The Landmark 348, Jalan Tun Razak, Kaula Lumpur, Malaysia - 50400 Pan: Aaica-1114-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax( International Taxation), Circle 1(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Hemen Chandariya & Anish Thacker ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) In Upholding The Assessment Order Taxing The Interest On Income Tax Refund As Business Income Under 2 Article-7 Of The India- Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Dtaa) @40% + Surcharge @ 5% + Cess @ 3%.

For Appellant: S/Shri Hemen Chandariya and Anish ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar
Section 244A

…137 to contend that interest on income tax refund is taxable under Article -11 of the DTAA. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez 377 ITR 102 to contend that interest on income tax refund is not connected with the PE and hence, rate of tax is to determined on the basis of relevant clause of Interest in DTAA. 4. Per contra, Shri Soumendu Kumar representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 5. Both sides heard, order…

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

…ng cases submitted that this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and prayed that the same may be adopted for the case of assessee also. (i). CIT vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd (161 ITR 524) (ii). DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez - 377 ITR 102 (Bom-HC) (iii). ACIT vs. Clough Engineering Ltd. - 130 ITD 137 (Del-SB) (iv). Avada Trading vs. ACIT 284 ITR (A.T.) 73 (Mum) (v). Bechtel International Inc vs. ADIT - 135 ITD 377 (Mum). (vi). International Global Networks BV vs. DDIT-50 SOT 433 (Mum) MISC Berhad vs. ADIT - 150 ITD 213 (Mum) 24. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authoritie…

Bharat Bhushan Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 54(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Bharat Bhushan Jain, Vs Ito, 61, Central Road, Bhogal, Ward-54(2), New Delhi-110014. New Delhi. Pan-Aafpj7453F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pushkar Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.05.2022

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 50CSection 69Section 69A

…learned Counsel for the Revenue, states that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez 377 ITR 102 (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI vs. Satish P. Shah 249 ITR 221 (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Revenue has accepted the decision of the Court/Tribunal on an issue of law and not challenged it in appeal, then a subsequent decision following the earlier decision cannot be c…

Dharampal Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1946/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1946/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Dharampal Brothers Pvt. Dcit-9(3)(1) Room No.215, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Mehra Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Compound, Sakinaka, Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacd4297R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 50C Do Not Apply To A Leasehold Land. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Decision Of The Bombay High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P) Ltd. 389 Itr 68 (Bombay) Wherein The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Held That Section 50C Does Not Apply To Leasehold Land. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.40,87,381/- As Short Term Capital Gain & Rs.1,65,91,485/- As Long Term Capital Gains.”

For Appellant: Shri Shekar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 50C

…evenue, states that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul G. Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT v. Credit 4 A.Y. 2015-16 Agricole Indosuez (2015) 377 ITR 102/(2016) 69 taxmann.com 285 (Bom) (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI v. Swish P. Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221/117 Taxman 373 (SC) (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Revenue has accepted the decision of the Court/Tribunal on an issue of law and not challenged it in appeal, then a subse…

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…wn case for assessment year 2013 – 14 wherein following the decision of the order special bench in case of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Clough Engineering Ltd 130 ITD 137 and the Bombay High Court in case of DIT versus credit Agricole Indo Seuz 377 ITR 102. Therefore it was submitted that the interest received on income tax refund is taxable at the rate of 10% under article 11 (2) of the DTAA. 27. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer and stated that above interest income has not arisen out of any debt claim as covered Under article…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Trans Freight Containers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3532/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Trans Freight R.No.609, 6Th Floor Containers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 72-73, Nariman Bhavan M.K.Road, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact1447P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 41Section 41(1)Section 50C

…s that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been 5 M/s. Trans Freight Containers Ltd., accepted. Our Court in DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez 377 ITR 102 (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI vs. Satish P. Shah 249 ITR 221 (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Revenue has accepted the decision of the Court/Tribunal on an issue of law and not challenged it in appeal, then a subsequent decision following the earlier decision cannot be c…

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank, Erstwhile Credit Agricole Indosuez, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) RG 1, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 6706/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: S/Shri Percy J. Pardiwala/Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar- DR
Section 143Section 254(1)

…by the provisions of section 44 C or not has to be decided after considering the details appearing in the documents and the judgment/order in assessee’s own case i.e. Credit Agricole 6706/M/12&6682/M/12- Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank Indosuez(377 ITR 102) and Credit Agricole Indosuez[21 ITR (Trib) 345].Therefore,we are of the opinion that matter needs further verification.So,in the interest of natural justice,we are restoring back the issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication,except for two items namely cost of credit risk assistance and EDP assistance.He is directed to afford reasonable opp…

Aegis Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee,in part

ITA 2671/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/2671/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 Aegis Logistics Limited Acit, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaaca 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri S.K. Mishra-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनु सार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा अनुसार लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनु अनु सार सार Challenging The Order,Dated 15/12/2010, Of The Cit (A)-1 Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Chemicals,Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/11/2006,Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs. 14.75 Crores.A Revised Return Was Filed On 28/03/2008 Reducing The Long-Term Capital Loss From The Returned Income.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment,U/S.143(3)Of The Act On 29/12/2008, Determin - Ing Its Income At Rs. 14. 85 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rm Capital Gain of Rs. 80, 58, 000/-on the ground that provisions of section 50 of the Act, 1961 were not applicable to transfer of land and building, being a leasehold property?” The Hon’ble High Court referring to the judgements of Credit Agricole Indosuez (377 ITR 102) and Satish P Shah(249 ITR 221)held that the question as claimed by the revenue did not give rise to any substantial question of law.We find that in the case of Ricoh India Ltd.(ITA/ 4464/ Mum/2012),identical issue has been dealt by the Tribunal as under: “9. Ground no.2, is regarding the applicability of section 50C, in respect of the sale of le…