“Section 9(1)(v)”

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

1335/Mum/2024 interest becomes payable by the PE, a non-resident for the purposes of the Act, the provisions of section 9(1)(v)(c) become attracted and the source rule for interest income becomes applicable for charging of this interest as income deemed to accrue or arise in India ... Guidelines. The difference comes to Rs. 1,16,69,304/- for AY 2013-14. As per provisions of section 9(1)(v)(c) of the Act, the moment interest becomes payable by the PE, a non-resident for the purposes of the Act, the source rule for interest income becomes

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

1335/Mum/2024 interest becomes payable by the PE, a non-resident for the purposes of the Act, the provisions of section 9(1)(v)(c) become attracted and the source rule for interest income becomes applicable for charging of this interest as income deemed to accrue or arise in India ... Guidelines. The difference comes to Rs. 1,16,69,304/- for AY 2013-14. As per provisions of section 9(1)(v) (c) of the Act, the moment interest becomes payable by the PE, a non-resident for the purposes of the Act, the source rule for interest income becomes

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(International Tax) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2751/Mum/2024

received by the Appellant outside India; 7. failed to appreciate that chargeability of interest incomes of non-residents is specifically governed by section 9(1)(v) of the Act and therefore, provisions of section 5(2) of the Act ought not to have been invoked; 8. failed to appreciate that ... interest income is not chargeable to tax in India in view of the exception provided under section 9(1)v)(b) of the Act; Ground of Appeal No. 9: Erroneous computation of total income 9. erred in making double addition of INR 2,44,08,767 pertaining to interest income

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Internationa Taxation)-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

resident shall include income from whatever sources which, inter alia, is deemed to accrue or arise in India. As per Section 9(1)(v)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, the following income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India: (v) income by way of interest payable ... moment interest becomes payable by the PE in India, which is a non-resident for the purposes of the Act, the provisions of section 9(1)(v)(c) become attracted and the source rule for interest income becomes applicable for charging of this interest as income deemed to accrue

ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

under the Act." 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not considering section 9(1)(v)(e) of the Act as a charging section as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Sanyasi

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'Ble

under the Act." 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not considering section 9(1)(v)(e) of the Act as a charging section as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Sanyasi

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

under the Act." 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not considering section 9(1)(v)(e) of the Act as a charging section as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Sanyasi

ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

under the Act." 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not considering section 9(1)(v)(e) of the Act as a charging section as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Sanyasi

First Abu Dhabi Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhfirst Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Pjsc, Unit No.1101 & Income-Tax (It), Circle 1201 Platina Building, C- 2(3)(1), Room No. 1614, 59, G Block, Bandra Kurla 16Th Floor, Air India Complex, Bandra East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaecn2845F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai-2, Dated 20.07.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: 1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Ao Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Initiating & Completing Assessment Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Without Issuing A Valid Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Ie, The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Dated 29 June 2021 For Initiating Assessment Was Issued By National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Instead Of Being Issued By The Learned Ao (I.E Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) 2. Ground No. 2:

P a g e | 1 First Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. DCIT(IT) Circle 2(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX

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)

assessee up to the assessment year 2011– 12. As regards the contention of the Department that as per the provision contained under section 9(1)(v)(c) of the Act interest income is taxable in India and the applicability of such provision has been ignored by the appellate authority ... must observe, this particular aspect relating to the applicability of section 9(1)(v)(c) of the Act was also under consideration of the Special Bench in case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (supra) and the Special Bench clearly and categorically held that since the interest payable by the Indian

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

erred in law and on facts in holding that the interest paid by the appellant on its FCCBs is covered by exception to Section 9(1)(v)(b) of the Act and 7 A.Y. 2014-15 Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd. consequently it falls outside the ambit of deemed income arising ... liable to tax in India as there is no income that had accrued or arisen in India to recipient within the meaning of section 9(1)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. Reliance in this 8 A.Y. 2014-15 Citicorp

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. ()

7/04/1996. The Assessing Officer further stated that interest payable by the branch to its head office is covered by the explanation inserted to section 9(1)(v)(c) by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and held that the said amendment is retrospective being clarificatory in nature. The Assessing Officer ... attention that for the year under consideration, the revenue had made the addition for the reason that Explanation was inserted to section 9(1)(v)(c) whereby the payments made by the PE to its head office is to be brought to tax if income deemed to accrue in India

Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

case and in law, the Learned AO/ DRP further erred in holding that the cost reimbursements are also taxable as 'Royalty both under section 9(1)(v) of the Act as well as Article 12 of the DTAA 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned