Case LawHigh Court › Director Of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai v....

Director Of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai v. M/S. Banque Indosuez

High Court 22 Jul 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Director Of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai v. M/S. Banque Indosuez
Date of order
22 Jul 2015
Assessment year(s)
1994-95, 1997-98
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Director Of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai v. M/S. Banque Indosuez, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

bsb 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1661 OF 2013 Director of Income Tax (IT)-I, Mumbai … Appellant v/s M/s. Banque Indosuez … Respondent Mr.Tejveer Singh for the appellant. Mr.P.J. Pardiwalla with M. Agarwal i/by A.K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2015 P.C.: This appeal by the revenue assails the order dated 21 September 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in respect of Assessment Year 1994-95. 2The appellant revenue has raised the following question of law for our consideration :- (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that bsb 2 interest/commission received by Indian Permanent Establishment of the foreign bank from its head office and other overseas branches is not chargeable to tax in computing total income ? 3It is an agreed position between the parties that the question formulated herein was the subject matter of the appeal filed by the revenue in respondent-assessee's own case (former name M/s.Credit Agricole Indo Suez) being Income Tax Appeal No.1430 of 2013 for the Assessment Year 1997-98, wherein the question raised at No.5 in Income Tax Appeal No.1430 of 2015 in respect of the same assessee was not entertained by the order dated 17 June 2015. For the reasons indicated in our order dated 17 June 2015, the question as framed by the revenue in this appeal is not being entertained. 4Accordingly, appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. ( N. M. JAMDAR, J. ) ( M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan