The Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation v. Shinhan Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4290 OF 2009 The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)..Appellant. Versus Shinhan Bank ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Counsel with Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.M. Savant, JJ. R.M. Savant, JJ. DATE : 21[st] December, 2010. P.C. : 1.Mentioned. Not on board. 2.Three questions of law have been raised in this appeal, which reads thus : a)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that salary paid to expatriate employees deputed from Head Office to the Indian branch is an expenditure to be allowed in full without the restrictions of section 44C of the Income Tax Act.Tribunal was justified in holding that salary paid to expatriate employees deputed from Head Office to the Indian branch is an expenditure to be allowed in full without the restrictions of section 44C of the Income Tax Act. b)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding as above without appreciating the fact that since the expenditure has not been debited in the accounts of the Indian Branch, the said expenditure cannot be Tribunal was justified in holding as above without appreciating the fact that since the expenditure has not been debited in the accounts of the Indian Branch, the said expenditure cannot be held to have been incurred by the Indian Branch. c)On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction on account of broken period interest.Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction on account of broken period interest. 3.As regards the first two questions are concerned, Counsel on both sides agree that both the questions raised in this appeal are covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Emirates Commercial Bank Limited reported in (2003) 262 ITR 55. 4.As regards the third question, Counsel for both the parties state that the said question is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. City Bank NA (Civil Appeal No.1549 of 2006) decided on 12[th] August 2009 against the Revenue. Accordingly, the third question also cannot be entertained. 5.In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.M. Savant, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)