Director Of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai v. M/S.calyon Bank, Mumbai. (Formerly Credit Agricole Indo Suez) …
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.calyon Bank, Mumbai. (Formerly Credit Agricole Indo Suez) …
Date of order
22 Jul 2015
Assessment year(s)
1999-2000, 1997-98
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Director Of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai v. M/S.calyon Bank, Mumbai. (Formerly Credit Agricole Indo Suez) …, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case bsb 2 and in law, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the interest earned on NOSTRO A/c. is taxable ?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
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. 1405 OF 2013
Director of Income Tax (IT)-I, Mumbai
… Appellant
v/sM/s.Calyon Bank, Mumbai.(formerly Credit Agricole Indo Suez)… 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 1999-2000.
2The appellant revenue has raised the following questions 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 income chargeable at special rate under Section 10(15) would be on gross basis and not on net basis ?
(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
bsb 2
and in law, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the interest earned on NOSTRO A/c. is taxable ?
(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that expenses incurred at Head Office on behalf of Indian branch of the assessee are deductible under Section 37(1) of the Act without any restrictions contained in Section 44C ?
(4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest/commission received by Indian Permanent Establishment of the foreign bank from its head office and other overseas branches ?
3It is an agreed position between the parties that the questions formulated herein were the subject matter of the appeal filed by the revenue in respondent-assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.1430 of 2013 for the Assessment Year 1997-98, wherein the questions raised herein were not entertained. Consequently the questions as formulated herein are not being entertained for the reasons mentioned in our order dated 17 June 2015 in Income Tax Appeal No.1430 of 2015.
4Accordingly, appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
( N. M. JAMDAR, J. ) ( M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
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.