Section 44C of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 44C is CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (291 ITR 482), cited in 163 of the 32 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44C

CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
291 ITR 482 · 2007 · Supreme Court
163
citing judgments

Consideration for the offshore supply of plant and equipment is not taxable in India if it is not attributable to a permanent establishment (PE) in India. The mere existence of a PE does not automatically make offshore supply income taxable in India without proper attribution.

CIT v. Lever India Exports Ltd.
78 Taxmann.com 88 · 2017 · High Court
111
citing judgments

A Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) must adhere to prescribed methods under Section 92C for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP); an ALP determination at Nil or an adjustment using the 'Other Method' is unsustainable without proper comparability analysis. The TPO's jurisdiction is confined to ALP determination, respecting the commercial expediency of the assessee's business strategy, such as shared advertisement expenditure.

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. DDIT
136 ITD 66 · 2012 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd.
262 ITR 55 · 2003 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Section 44C of the Income Tax Act does not apply to expenses exclusively incurred by a foreign bank's branch office in India. The provision applies only to common head office expenses that require allocation across various entities.

ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.
130 ITD 137 · 2011 · ITAT
52
citing judgments

Interest income, such as on income-tax refunds or fixed deposits, derived by a foreign entity with a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is taxable under DTAA if the debt-claim is effectively connected or attributable to the PE. For DTAA purposes, the terms 'attributable' and 'effectively connected' are considered to have the same meaning.

CIT v. Bank of Tokyo Ltd.
71 Taxmann 85 · 1993 · High Court
30
citing judgments
ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.
11 Taxmann.com 70 · 2011 · High Court
29
citing judgments

The Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Clough Engineering Ltd. interprets treaty provisions and the expression 'in connection with PE' for taxability. It is not applicable when income is offered under domestic provisions and not disputed.

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn v. Deputy Director of Income-tax (IT), Range-2(1), Mumbai
19 Taxmann.com 364 · 2012 · Reported
26
citing judgments
ABN Amro Bank NV v. CIT
343 ITR 81 · 2012 · High Court
20
citing judgments
ABN AMRO Bank NV v. ADIT
97 ITD 89 · 2005 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 44C

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

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 44C

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7487/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3756/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Yr.: 2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 44CSection 90

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1401/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1401/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sheladia Associates Inc. Vs. Adit (International Secunderabad Taxation)-2 Pan : Aafcs7792F Hyderabad

For Appellant: Smt.V.Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 270ASection 40Section 44C

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3486/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: 09.04.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153Section 270ASection 37Section 44C

ACIT(IT)-3(2)(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUNCHENER RUCKVERSICHERUNGS-GESELLSCHAFT AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT IN MUNCHEN, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5094/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

ACIT(IT)-3(2)(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUNCHENER RUCKVERSICHERUNGS-GESELLSCHAFT AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT IN MUNCHEN, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5093/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

MUNCHENER RUCKVERSICHERUNGS-GESELLSCHAFT AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT IN MUNCHEN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4833/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

MUNCHENER RUCKVERSICHERUNGS -GESELLSCHAFT AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT IN MUNCHEN ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4832/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

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

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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)

Section 143(3)

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

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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)

Section 143(3)

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

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

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)

Section 143(3)

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

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

ITA 1342/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2002-2003

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

Section 37Section 44C

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4722/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3691/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3691/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2