Dresdner Bank AG v. Add1. CIT

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

…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 tax in India. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on this issue was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant material on r…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

…s taxable as per Article 12 of the tax treaty between India and UK. 4.4 CIT(A)’s Decision (Page 24, para 10.3) Page 19 of 72 The Hon’ble CIT(A) relied on circular 740 dated 17 April 1996 and decision of ITAT in case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. Addl. CIT (2007)(108 ITD 375) and held that interest earned by the HO/OB is taxable in India. 4.5 Appellant’s submissions The Appellant submits that this issue is covered in favor of the Appellant by the decision of the Special bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs. DDIT (2012) (136 ITD 66). The Hon’ble Tribunal has inter alia held t…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/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) Assessee Represented by : Shri Farooq Irani Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma Department Represented by : Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 27.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2023 O R D E R PER…

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. ()

…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 India. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on this issue was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. As…

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

…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. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on this issue was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. As agreed by the…

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

…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. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on this issue was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. As agreed by the…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

…me earned by HO is covered by principles of mutuality, hence not taxable under the Act, then option of claiming the interest expenditure under the DTAA cannot be exercised n respect of the same transaction in view of the decision Hon'ble ITAT in Dresdner Bank 108 ITD 375 (mum) wherein the ITAT in para 78 has held that once the assessee accepts applicability of Act for one purpose, then it cannot go back to seek relief under the DTAA in respect of some other item from taxability under the Act. (c) By holding the interest received by HO from BO to be not taxable under the Act being covered by mutuality and at the s…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

…me earned by HO is covered by principles of mutuality, hence not taxable under the Act, then option of claiming the interest expenditure under the DTAA cannot be exercised n respect of the same transaction in view of the decision Hon'ble ITAT in Dresdner Bank 108 ITD 375 (mum) wherein the ITAT in para 78 has held that once the assessee accepts applicability of Act for one purpose, then it cannot go back to seek relief under the DTAA in respect of some other item from taxability under the Act. (c) By holding the interest received by HO from BO to be not taxable under the Act being covered by mutuality and at the s…

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:

…TAT 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. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on this issue was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. As agreed by th…

Industrial Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT- 19, Mumba

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhindustrial Development Bank Of Joint Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, Icbi Tower, –Tax, Range -19, 4Th Floor, Wtc Complex, Cuff 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Prade, Mumbai-400005 Mumbai-400020 Vs Pan: Aaci 1105 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Ar Respondent By : Sh. Awungshi Ginson ( Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Industrial Development Bank of Joint Commissioner of Income India, Taxation Cell, ICBI Tower, –tax, Range -19, 4th Floor, WTC Complex, Cuff 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Prade, Mumbai-400005 Mumbai-400020 Vs PAN: AACI 1105 R Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Satish Mody AR Respondent by : Sh. Awungshi Ginson ( Sr.DR) Date of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by ass…

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

…TAT 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. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on this issue was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. As agreed by th…

Bnp Pribas Sa, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

…TAT 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. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on this issue was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. As agreed by th…

Bnp Paribas Sa, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It)-3(2), Mumbai

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

…atter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) but without any success. Learned CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied upon the observations made by a co- ordinate bench, in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. ACIT [(2007) 108 ITD 375 (Mum)], to the effect that “for determination of income accruing or arising in India in the case of a foreign enterprise operating in India, it’s India operations Assessment Year: 2004-05 Page 4 of 11 are to be taken as hypothetically independent unit, and therefore, intra organisation interest income would have to be taken into account to arrive…

Bnp Paribas Sa, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

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

…TAT 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. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on this issue was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. As agreed by th…

Bnp Paribas Sa, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

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

…TAT 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. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on this issue was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. As agreed by t…

DDIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Lyonnais (Through Theri Successor Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank ( Formerly Calyon Bank), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

…of expenditure to self and interest received from self through a branch or Permanent Establishment (PE) is not permissible under the Act. The CIT(A) has noticed that subsequently, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dresdner Bank Ag vs. Addl. CIT, 108 ITD 375 (Mum) held that interest received from Head office of non-resident bank by Indian branch is taxable in India. The said decision distinguished the decision (Assessment Year : 2003-04) of Special Bench in the case ABN Amro Bank (supra). Further, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of American Express Bank Ltd., vide order dated 28/2/2007 f…