M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

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

depreciation expenses,\netc., are nothing but pertain to general banking business conducted at a\nbranch, and thus are in the nature of “executive and general administration”\nexpenses of the bank. Further, we find that these expenses also fall within the\nspecific species enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Explanation to section 44C

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

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

44C of the Act. Respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench and judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee, we are in agreement with the contentions of assessee and ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Page 19 of 90 Ground No. 3: Interest paid to Head office / Overseas Branches 3.1 Ground 3.1 The learned CIT(A) erred

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

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

44C of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of allowing exemption to the assessee u/s. 10(15)(iv) on net income basis and not on gross. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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 :

depreciation at the eligible rate was allowed. b) The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the disallowance of expenditure incurred on Software Development expenses made by the Assessing Officer aggregating to Rs. 13,14,42,560/- by treating the same as capital in nature. c) The disallowance upheld by learned CIT (A) is unjustifiable and must be quashed

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

44C of the Act and hence should be allowed in full. 3. 3.1 The leaned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts to disallow interest payable to head office/ overseas branch under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on the ground of no withholding of tax. 3.2 The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered that the interest

THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - RANGE -3, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

depreciation on payment to Gillanders be allowed. 15. Here in this case, the Tribunal as noted above has already held that expenditure incurred by the assessee for vacating the premises given to the tenant is business expenditure and allowable as Revenue expenditure as paying compensation to the tenant for vacating premises cannot be capital expenditure. M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

depreciation on payment to Gillanders be allowed. 15. Here in this case, the Tribunal as noted above has already held that expenditure incurred by the assessee for vacating the premises given to the tenant is business expenditure and allowable as Revenue expenditure as paying compensation to the tenant for vacating premises cannot be capital expenditure. M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

depreciation on payment to Gillanders be allowed. 15. Here in this case, the Tribunal as noted above has already held that expenditure incurred by the assessee for vacating the premises given to the tenant is business expenditure and allowable as Revenue expenditure as paying compensation to the tenant for vacating premises cannot be capital expenditure. M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation

DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. HONGKONG & SANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7336/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2004-05) & ITA No.4765/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2005-06) The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior Vice President Tax, India Area Management 5th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, 52/60, MG Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) Vs. The Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai 1st Flo

depreciation on payment to Gillanders be allowed. 15. Here in this case, the Tribunal as noted above has already held that expenditure incurred by the assessee for vacating the premises given to the tenant is business expenditure and allowable as Revenue expenditure as paying compensation to the tenant for vacating premises cannot be capital expenditure. M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation

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

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

44C of the Act which\nwas set-aside by the Ld.CIT(A) relying on ITAT orders in assessee's own\ncase and Ld.CIT(A) orders for the past assessment years. The\nDepartment raised this new ground of taxability of salaries to expatriates\nunder section 28(iv) of the Act for the first time before the Hon'ble ITAT\nbench

DCIT (IT)1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BAHRAIN AND KUWAIT BSC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation, advertising, other). The findings of the Hon'ble Tribunal are summed up in para 24 of the order which is reproduced below: “24. To sum up, the Direct and exclusive NRI Desk expenses (A), being the items 1 and 2 of Table extracted above, incurred by the head office are not hit by section 44C

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

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

44C of the Act which\nwas set-aside by the Ld.CIT(A) relying on ITAT orders in assessee's own\ncase and Ld.CIT(A) orders for the past assessment years. The\nDepartment raised this new ground of taxability of salaries to expatriates\nunder section 28(iv) of the Act for the first time before the Hon'ble ITAT\nbench

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

44C of the Act which\nPage No. 5\nwas set-aside by the Ld.CIT(A) relying on ITAT orders in assessee's own\ncase and Ld.CIT(A) orders for the past assessment years. The\nDepartment raised this new ground of taxability of salaries to expatriates\nunder section 28(iv) of the Act for the first time before

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

44C of the Act which\nPage No. 5\nwas set-aside by the Ld.CIT(A) relying on ITAT orders in assessee's own\ncase and Ld.CIT(A) orders for the past assessment years. The\nDepartment raised this new ground of taxability of salaries to expatriates\nunder section 28(iv) of the Act for the first time before

DDIT (IT) -4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SOCIETE INTERNATIONAL DE TELECOMMUNICATION AERONAUTIQUES SC (SITA), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and CO of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 668/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Societe Internationael De Tax, (It)-4(2)(2), Telecommunications Room No. 1613, 16 Th Floor, Aeronautiques Sc (Sita) Air India Building, Nariman C/O, A.F.L. House, Ground Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 021 Floor Lok Bharti Complex, Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcs2907Q प्रत्याक्षेप M./ Co No. 81/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 668/Mum/2018 For Ay 2012-13) Societe Internationael De Dy. Commissioner Of Telecommunications Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(2), Room No. 1613, 16 Th Floor, Aeronautiques Sc (Sita) C/P, A.F.L. House, Ground Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Floor Lok Bharti Complex, Point, Mumbai-400 021 Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nishant Samaiya, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11-06-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2019

depreciation allowance under Section 32 of the Act '. 'computing the net income of the appellant company. Interest Income 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the interest received on income tax refunds by the appellant company is covered by the Principle of Mutuality' and therefore, the said income should not be taxable.” 8. At the outset

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) RG-3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Adit (It) 3(1) Vs. The Hongkong & Scindia House, Shanghai Banking R.No.132, 1St Floor Corporation Ltd N.M.Road, 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Mumbai – 38 Road Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & The Hongkong & Vs. Adit (It) 3(1) Shanghai Banking Scindia House, R.No.132, 1St Floor Corporation Ltd 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi N.M.Road, Road Mumbai – 38 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

44C of the Act. The ld. AO however, disregarded the contentions of the assessee and observed that these expenses were not debited by the assessee in its profit and loss account and accordingly treated the same as “head office expenses” u/s.44C of the Act. Hence, he disallowed the sum of Rs.4,54,65,934/- in the assessment

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)

44C of the Act. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee that these expenses are direct expenses pertaining to the Indian Branches and are not HO expenses allocated to the assessee. The second ground for disallowance as held by the AO is that these payments are taxable in the hands of HO in India and accordingly

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)

44C of the Act. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee that these expenses are direct expenses pertaining to the Indian Branches and are not HO expenses allocated to the assessee. The second ground for disallowance as held by the AO is that these payments are taxable in the hands of HO in India and accordingly

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)

44C of the Act. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee that these expenses are direct expenses pertaining to the Indian Branches and are not HO expenses allocated to the assessee. The second ground for disallowance as held by the AO is that these payments are taxable in the hands of HO in India and accordingly