Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. DDIT

136 ITD 66Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#1617 most cited

What is Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. DDIT authority for?

Interest income received by a foreign bank's Head Office or Overseas Branch is not taxable in India where Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement applies, clarifying the scope of taxability for such entities under DTAAs.

70

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v DDIT · ITAT Special Bench · foreign bank interest · overseas branch income · Head Office taxability · Article 12 DTAA · Section 9(1)(v) · Section 115A

Also reported as

145 TTJ 649

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115ASection 40(a)(i)Section 44CSection 9(1)(v)(c)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(v)section 44csection 92c(1)section 92ca(3a)use of equipmentsection 80hhesection 35ddasection 35ddsection 43dsection 40(a)(1)section 147(1)section 9(1)(i)

Judgments citing Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. DDIT

Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mizuho Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result the grounds no

ITA 2872/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Mehul Talera
Section 163Section 40

…is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of ABN Amro Bank, 97 ITD 89. Recently the issue is also dealt by the ITA No.3282/09, CO46/13 & ITA No 602/2013 7 ITAT Special Bench at Mumbai in the case of Sumitomo Mitsu Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB), wherein it has been held interest paid by the Indian Branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India. It was further held that the provisions of Section 195 consequently would not be attracted in case of such payment of interest by the Indian Branch to overseas Head Office and the question of di…

Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(2, Mumbai vs. M/S Mizuho Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result the grounds no

ITA 2870/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Mehul Talera
Section 163Section 40

…is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of ABN Amro Bank, 97 ITD 89. Recently the issue is also dealt by the ITA No.3282/09, CO46/13 & ITA No 602/2013 7 ITAT Special Bench at Mumbai in the case of Sumitomo Mitsu Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB), wherein it has been held interest paid by the Indian Branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India. It was further held that the provisions of Section 195 consequently would not be attracted in case of such payment of interest by the Indian Branch to overseas Head Office and the question of di…

Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mizuho Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result the grounds no

ITA 2869/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Mehul Talera
Section 163Section 40

…is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of ABN Amro Bank, 97 ITD 89. Recently the issue is also dealt by the ITA No.3282/09, CO46/13 & ITA No 602/2013 7 ITAT Special Bench at Mumbai in the case of Sumitomo Mitsu Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB), wherein it has been held interest paid by the Indian Branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India. It was further held that the provisions of Section 195 consequently would not be attracted in case of such payment of interest by the Indian Branch to overseas Head Office and the question of di…

Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mizuho Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result the grounds no

ITA 2868/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Mehul Talera
Section 163Section 40

…is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of ABN Amro Bank, 97 ITD 89. Recently the issue is also dealt by the ITA No.3282/09, CO46/13 & ITA No 602/2013 7 ITAT Special Bench at Mumbai in the case of Sumitomo Mitsu Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB), wherein it has been held interest paid by the Indian Branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India. It was further held that the provisions of Section 195 consequently would not be attracted in case of such payment of interest by the Indian Branch to overseas Head Office and the question of di…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mizuho Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result the grounds no

ITA 2867/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Mehul Talera
Section 163Section 40

…is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of ABN Amro Bank, 97 ITD 89. Recently the issue is also dealt by the ITA No.3282/09, CO46/13 & ITA No 602/2013 7 ITAT Special Bench at Mumbai in the case of Sumitomo Mitsu Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB), wherein it has been held interest paid by the Indian Branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India. It was further held that the provisions of Section 195 consequently would not be attracted in case of such payment of interest by the Indian Branch to overseas Head Office and the question of di…

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

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…56. In the cross-objections filed by the Assessing Officer, the following grievances are raised: Cross objection No. 1- On disallowance of Interest paid to Head office:- (a) If the decision of Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation 136 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB) holding that the interest received by Head office from its branch in India was covered by the principles of mutuality is sought to be applied by assessee, then the interest expenditure incurred by the branch should be disallowed u/s 14A in view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Oman International Bank SAOG 35 CCH 207…

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

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…56. In the cross-objections filed by the Assessing Officer, the following grievances are raised: Cross objection No. 1- On disallowance of Interest paid to Head office:- (a) If the decision of Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation 136 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB) holding that the interest received by Head office from its branch in India was covered by the principles of mutuality is sought to be applied by assessee, then the interest expenditure incurred by the branch should be disallowed u/s 14A in view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Oman International Bank SAOG 35 CCH 207…

Mizuho Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2786/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 250Section 40Section 92C

…tion of interest income earned by the head office from the branch office had already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsu Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB), wherein it was held that interest paid by Indian branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India. The Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in ITA No.7479/Mum/2007, vide order dated 25-7-2012, has held as under :- “The Ld. DR, however, has fairly and frankly conceded that both the issues involved in…

Mizuho Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 2785/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 250Section 40Section 92C

…tion of interest income earned by the head office from the branch office had already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsu Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB), wherein it was held that interest paid by Indian branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India. The Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in ITA No.7479/Mum/2007, vide order dated 25-7-2012, has held as under :- “The Ld. DR, however, has fairly and frankly conceded that both the issues involved in…

DCIT (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mizuho Corporate Bank Maker, Mumbai

ITA 2712/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 250Section 40Section 92C

…tion of interest income earned by the head office from the branch office had already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsu Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB), wherein it was held that interest paid by Indian branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India. The Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in ITA No.7479/Mum/2007, vide order dated 25-7-2012, has held as under :- “The Ld. DR, however, has fairly and frankly conceded that both the issues involved in…

DCIT (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mizuho Corporate Bank Maker, Mumbai

ITA 2711/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 250Section 40Section 92C

…tion of interest income earned by the head office from the branch office had already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsu Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB), wherein it was held that interest paid by Indian branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India. The Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in ITA No.7479/Mum/2007, vide order dated 25-7-2012, has held as under :- “The Ld. DR, however, has fairly and frankly conceded that both the issues involved in…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6994/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 44C

…is aspect, and, as such, the grievance of the assessee is not maintainable. The correctness of this approach apart, the DRP also noted that the reliance of the assessee, on the special bench decision in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp Vs DDIT [(2012) 136 ITD 66 SB (Mum)], is of no avail, as this decision has been challenged before the Hon‘ble High Court. The proposed action of the Assessing Officer was thus approved by the DRP as well. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proceeded with (a) denying deduction, in the computation of profits attributable to the PE, of PE GE interest payment; (b) bringing the…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6993/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 90

…is aspect, and, as such, the grievance of the assessee is not maintainable. The correctness of this approach apart, the DRP also noted that the reliance of the assessee, on the special bench decision in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp Vs DDIT [(2012) 136 ITD 66 SB (Mum)], is of no avail, as this decision has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court. The proposed action of the Assessing Officer was thus approved by the DRP as well. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proceeded with (a) denying deduction, in the computation of profits attributable to the PE, of PE GE interest payment; (b) bringing the…

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

ITA 7458/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

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:

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 93C

…order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No. 1232/Mum/2018, dated 17.07.2019, the Tribunal following the order of the „Special bench‟ of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Vs. DDIT (2012) 163 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB) and the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for the preceding years, had concluded, that the interest income received by the assessee from its Indian branch being a payment made to self was thus not taxable in the hands of the assessee. For a fair ITA No.7458/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 10 M/s BNP Parib…

M/S. the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ufj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1162/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P. & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, A.M. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1162/Del/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" The Bank Of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ufj Ltd., Jeevan Vihar Building, 3, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aabct3880D Vs The Ddit (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Adv & Sh. Hiteh Chande, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Sh. H.K.Choudhary, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Adv &For Respondent: Sh. H.K.Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 44CSection 9(1)(v)

…elf and interest paid is allowable as deduction under the DTAA. 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 That the Hon’ble DRP and Ld. AO have erred in not b) following the direct judgment of the Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking jj Corporation (136 ITD 66) wherein the Appellant was an intervener. That the Hon’ble DRP and Ld. AO have erred in placing c) reliance on the CBDT Circular No. 740 dated 17 April 1996 in order to disallow the interest paid to overseas branches/head office, without comprehending the true import of the circular. 3. Addition on account of income of the Appellant pertaining to…

DCIT (It) 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Bnp Paribas Sa, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1689/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh Irani a/wFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Kanak

…e year 2005–06 in assessee’s own case the Tribunal in ITA no.339/Mum./2019, dated 16th July 2014, followed its earlier order and held that as per the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v/s DDIT, [2012] 163 ITD 66 (Mum.)(SB), the payment of data processing fee being a payment to self, is governed by the principles of mutuality, hence, not taxable. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted the addition. The same view has been expressed in the subsequent assessment years as well and the latest order of the Tribunal on the issue is for the assessment year 2010–11 in I…

M/S. Standard Chartered Grindlays Pty Limited, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 3459/DEL/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Shashi M, Kapila, P. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.K.Dhall, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274(2)(b)Section 36Section 4

…sustaining penalty of Rs. 17,71,00,000/- for interest paid by the appellant to its overseas head office on account of borrowing funds for its Indian business. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. DCIT [136 ITD 66 (Mumbai) (SB)], Hon’ble Tribunal has held that interest paid to overseas head office is allowed as tax deductible expenses. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,68,73,947/- on account of erroneous interpretation of the provision of Sec. 36(i)(viia), which now stands clarified by the Supr…

Bnp Paribas Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 444/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Bnp Paribas Sa, Dcit(Int. Taxation)-1(3)(1), 1, North Avenue, Room No.119, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Maker Maxity, Scindia House, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Ballard Estate, Bandra East, Mumbai-400038 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacb4868Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Farrokh Irani राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Samuel Darse Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘एल’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘L’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/s. BNP Paribas SA, DCIT(Int. Taxation)-1(3)(1), 1, North Avenue, Room No.119, 1st Floor, बनाम/ Maker Maxity, Scindia House, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Ballard Estate, Bandra East, Mumbai-400038 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAACB4868Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Farrokh Irani राज"व क" ओर…

DCIT (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mizuho Corporate Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4710/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.V Rajguru, D.RFor Respondent: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 163(1)(c)Section 40Section 9(1)(v)

…nder Section 40(a)(ia). We found that issue is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of ABN Amro Bank, 97 ITD 89. Recently the issue is also dealt by the ITAT Special Bench at Mumbai in the case of Sumitomo Mistu Banking Corp. 136 ITD 66 (Mum) (SB), wherein it has been held interest paid by the Indian Branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India. It was further held that the provisions of section 195 consequently would not be attracted in case of such payment of interest by the Indian Branch to overseas Head Office and the question of d…

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 692/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S.Sh.Percy Pardiwala and Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse,CIT DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…, that the RBI never raised any objection in that regard, he referred cases of Mitusi & Company(399 ITR 505),Nagase & Co.(ITA/1800/ 692/M/16-DZ Bank Mum/2007,dt.12/01/2017), Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores(313 ITR 95),Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation(136 ITD 66)and stated that even if there was PE debt claim had to be connected to PE, that the AO had failed to establish the connection, that even if Article 7 of the Treaty was applicable what was taxable was the part of income that was connected with PE. On a query by the Bench,it was stated that assessment for the earlier three years i.e. assessment year…