Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. DDIT

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

…cle 11(2) of the DTAA. 12.1. Assessee submitted that this issue is concluded in its favour by the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench and Co-ordinate Benches as under: i. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. DDIT [2012] 19 taxmann.com 364 (Mumbai)(SB) [2012] 136 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB) ii. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v. DCIT in ITA No. 1479/Mum/2015) (Mum) iii. BNP Paribas SA v DCIT in ITA no 1689/Mum/2018 (Mum) 12.2. Ld. DR submitted that decision in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (supra) has not been accepted by the Revenue and is under contest before the higher appellate forum.…

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

…terest in the hands of Head Office/Overseas Branch under Article-12 of India France DTAA. The short contention of the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs. DDIT. 136 ITD 66 (Mum-SB). This is a recurring issue in assessee's case. In Assessment Year 2005-06 similar issue had come up, the Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Steria India Ltd., 386 ITR 390 dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the Revenue. 18.1 Both sides heard. We find that identical issue has been decided by…

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

…terest in the hands of Head Office/Overseas Branch under Article-12 of India France DTAA. The short contention of the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs. DDIT. 136 ITD 66 (Mum-SB). This is a recurring issue in assessee's case. In Assessment Year 2005-06 similar issue had come up, the Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Steria India Ltd., 386 ITR 390 dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the Revenue. 18.1 Both sides heard. We find that identical issue has been decided by…

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE JT CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONA), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

…st in the hands of Head\nOffice/Overseas Branch under Article-12 of India France DTAA. The short\ncontention of the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision\nof Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs.\nDDIT. 136 ITD 66 (Mum-SB). This is a recurring issue in assessee's case. In\n Assessment Year 2005-06 similar issue had come up, the Tribunal placing\nreliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Steria India Ltd.,\n386 ITR 390 dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the Revenue.\n18.1 Both sides heard. We find that identical issue has been decid…

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

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

…st in the hands of Head\nOffice/Overseas Branch under Article-12 of India France DTAA. The short\ncontention of the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision\nof Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs.\nDDIT. 136 ITD 66 (Mum-SB). This is a recurring issue in assessee's case. In\n Assessment Year 2005-06 similar issue had come up, the Tribunal placing\nreliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Steria India Ltd.,\n386 ITR 390 dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the Revenue.\n18.1 Both sides heard. We find that identical issue has been decid…

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

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

…st in the hands of Head\nOffice/Overseas Branch under Article-12 of India France DTAA. The short\ncontention of the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision\nof Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs.\nDDIT. 136 ITD 66 (Mum-SB). This is a recurring issue in assessee's case. In\n Assessment Year 2005-06 similar issue had come up, the Tribunal placing\nreliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Steria India Ltd.,\n386 ITR 390 dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the Revenue.\n18.1 Both sides heard. We find that identical issue has been decid…

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

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

…st in the hands of Head\nOffice/Overseas Branch under Article-12 of India France DTAA. The short\ncontention of the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision\nof Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs.\nDDIT. 136 ITD 66 (Mum-SB). This is a recurring issue in assessee's case. In\n Assessment Year 2005-06 similar issue had come up, the Tribunal placing\nreliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Steria India Ltd.,\n386 ITR 390 dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the Revenue.\n18.1 Both sides heard. We find that identical issue has been decid…

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

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

…st in the hands of Head\nOffice/Overseas Branch under Article-12 of India France DTAA. The short\ncontention of the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision\nof Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs.\nDDIT. 136 ITD 66 (Mum-SB). This is a recurring issue in assessee's case. In\n Assessment Year 2005-06 similar issue had come up, the Tribunal placing\nreliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Steria India Ltd.,\n386 ITR 390 dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the Revenue.\n18.1 Both sides heard. We find that identical issue has been decid…

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

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

…st in the hands of Head\nOffice/Overseas Branch under Article-12 of India France DTAA. The short\ncontention of the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision\nof Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs.\nDDIT. 136 ITD 66 (Mum-SB). This is a recurring issue in assessee's case. In\n Assessment Year 2005-06 similar issue had come up, the Tribunal placing\nreliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Steria India Ltd.,\n386 ITR 390 dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the Revenue.\n18.1 Both sides heard. We find that identical issue has been decid…

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

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

…terest in the hands of Head Office/Overseas Branch under Article-12 of India France DTAA. The short contention of the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs. DDIT. 136 ITD 66 (Mum-SB). This is a recurring issue in assessee's case. In Assessment Year 2005-06 similar issue had come up, the Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Steria India Ltd., 386 ITR 390 dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the Revenue. 18.1 Both sides heard. We find that identical issue has been decided by…

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

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

…st in the hands of Head\nOffice/Overseas Branch under Article-12 of India France DTAA. The short\ncontention of the assessee is that this issue is squarely covered by the decision\nof Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs.\nDDIT. 136 ITD 66 (Mum-SB). This is a recurring issue in assessee's case. In\n Assessment Year 2005-06 similar issue had come up, the Tribunal placing\nreliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Steria India Ltd.,\n386 ITR 390 dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the Revenue.\n18.1 Both sides heard. We find that identical issue has been decid…

M/S. MASHREQ BANK PSC.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) - 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadangshri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2002-03

…of Maru Ram & Ors Vs. Union of India (supra) has been considered while interpreting Article 25(1). Further, he submitted, the decision in case of Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank (supra) has erroneously relied upon the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (136 ITD 66), since the Special Bench was never called upon to decide the issue relating to deduction of head office expenses and the decision was rendered in the context of deduction of interest expenditure, being interest paid to head office and its taxability at the hands of head office. Thus, he submitted, the departmental authorities were correct in c…

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

…re As discussed in assessment order, issue of deductibility of payments made by the Indian Branch of the foreign Bank to Head Office (HO) was extensively deliberated upon by the Special Bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB). Further, in the said case, Hon'ble Tribunal have specifically mentioned that payments such as interest payments etc. made by the Indian Branch to HO are payment to self and thus not allowable as deduction under the Income Tax Act. Further, the Tribunal stated that, such deduction was allowable taking into consideration the provisions o…

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED INDIA BRANCHES ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

…d. As discussed in assessment order, issue of deductibility of payments made by the Indian Branch of the foreign Bank to Head Office (HO) was extensively deliberated upon by the Special Bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB). Further, in the said case, Hon'ble Tribunal have specifically mentioned that payments such as interest payments etc. made by the Indian Branch to HO are payment to self and thus not allowable as deduction under the Income Tax Act. Further, the Tribunal stated that, such deduction was allowable taking into consideration the provisions o…

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED -INDIA BRANCHES ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

…d. As discussed in assessment order, issue of deductibility of payments made by the Indian Branch of the foreign Bank to Head Office (HO) was extensively deliberated upon by the Special Bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB). Further, in the said case, Hon'ble Tribunal have specifically mentioned that payments such as interest payments etc. made by the Indian Branch to HO are payment to self and thus not allowable as deduction under the Income Tax Act. Further, the Tribunal stated that, such deduction was allowable taking into consideration the provisions o…

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), NARIMAN POINT vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

…were discussed in assessment order, issue of deductibility of payments made by the Indian Branch of the foreign Bank to Head Office (HO) was extensively deliberated upon by the Special Bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB). Further, in the said case, Hon'ble Tribunal have specifically mentioned that payments such as interest payments etc. made by the Indian Branch to HO are payment to self and thus not allowable as deduction under the Income Tax Act. Further, the Tribunal stated that, such deduction was allowable taking into consideration the provisions o…

DCIT(IT) - 2(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

…d. As discussed in assessment order, issue of deductibility of payments made by the Indian Branch of the foreign Bank to Head Office (HO) was extensively deliberated upon by the Special Bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB). Further, in the said case, Hon'ble Tribunal have specifically mentioned that payments such as interest payments etc. made by the Indian Branch to HO are payment to self and thus not allowable as deduction under the Income Tax Act. Further, the Tribunal stated that, such deduction was allowable taking into consideration the provisions o…

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

…were discussed in assessment order, issue of deductibility of payments made by the Indian Branch of the foreign Bank to Head Office (HO) was extensively deliberated upon by the Special Bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB). Further, in the said case, Hon'ble Tribunal have specifically mentioned that payments such as interest payments etc. made by the Indian Branch to HO are payment to self and thus not allowable as deduction under the Income Tax Act. Further, the Tribunal stated that, such deduction was allowable taking into consideration the provisions o…

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

…‘DTAA’) read with clause 7 of the Protocol to the DTAA. The AO vide draft assessment order did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation vs DDIT (2012) 145 TTJ 649 (Mum.)(SB) cannot be applied to data processing fees paid by the branch office to the Singapore branch in terms of the agreement entered between them as two individual entities i.e. as principal and independent contractor. The AO further held that the data processing fee paid by the branch office to the Singapore branch is taxable as fees for tec…

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

…he taxable unit is the foreign company and not the PE. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that, in the light of the five-member bench decision of this Tribunal, in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn. v. Dy. CIT (IT) [2012] 19 taxmann.com 364/136 ITD 66 (Mum.), the intra-organization transactions, as non-reimbursement of employee costs by the PE to HO, is, are tax neutral. In any case, there cannot be a benefit accruing to the Korean company when the Indian PE of the assessee company does not reimburse its Korean company, because the assessee itself is the Korean company and the transaction in qu…