Tribunal Ruling: Tax Rate Upheld, Offshore Remuneration Disallowed, Interest Deduction Allowed

The tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, directing specific actions on various issues. The tax rate applicable to the bank was upheld at 40% plus surcharge. The disallowance of offshore remuneration was remitted for verification. Interest paid to the head office was allowed as a deduction. The claim for a refund of tax deducted at source on interest payments was subject to verification. Higher depreciation on ATMs at 60% was approved. Lease rentals on vehicles were allowed as revenue expenditure. The disallowed offshore expenses were not pressed. The addition of offshore expenses under section 28(iv) and penalty proceedings were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rate of Tax Applicable to the Bank
2. Disallowance of Offshore Remuneration
3. Interest Paid to Head Office
4. Claim of Refund of Tax Deducted at Source on Interest Payments Made to Head Office and Other Branches
5. Interest Received from Head Office
6. Higher Rate of Depreciation on ATMs
7. Disallowance of Lease Rentals on Vehicles
8. Disallowance of Offshore Expenses
9. Addition of Offshore Expenses u/s 28(iv) of the Act
10. Levy of Interest u/s 234B, 234C, 234D, and Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act on Account of Offshore Expenses

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rate of Tax Applicable to the Bank:
The assessee, a bank incorporated in the Netherlands, argued for a tax rate of 36.5925% based on Article 24 of the DTAA with the Netherlands, claiming it should be taxed at the rate applicable to domestic companies. However, the AO and CIT(A) held that the applicable tax rate for a non-resident foreign company is 40% plus surcharge. The tribunal, following its own decision from the previous year, dismissed the assessee's ground.

2. Disallowance of Offshore Remuneration:
The assessee claimed offshore remuneration paid to expatriate employees as a deduction. The AO disallowed this claim, citing the lack of evidence that the remuneration was not included in the deduction u/s 44C. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. The tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification, following its earlier orders which allowed the claim subject to verification.

3. Interest Paid to Head Office:
The AO disallowed the interest paid to the head office and other branches outside India, citing non-deduction of tax at source as per section 40(a)(i). The CIT(A) upheld this decision. However, the tribunal allowed the assessee's claim, following the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, which held that no tax needed to be deducted on such payments under the DTAA between India and the Netherlands.

4. Claim of Refund of Tax Deducted at Source on Interest Payments Made to Head Office and Other Branches:
The assessee sought a refund of TDS on interest payments made to the head office, arguing that no tax was required to be deducted as per the Calcutta High Court's decision. The tribunal admitted the additional ground for verification by the AO to check if TDS was indeed deducted and remitted. If so, the assessee would be entitled to a refund.

5. Interest Received from Head Office:
The assessee conceded that this ground was interlinked with the interest paid to the head office. Since the tribunal allowed the interest paid as a deduction, this ground was dismissed as not pressed.

6. Higher Rate of Depreciation on ATMs:
The assessee claimed depreciation on ATMs at 60%, treating them as computers. The AO allowed only 25%, treating them as plant and machinery. The tribunal, following decisions from the Delhi Tribunal and the Bombay High Court, held that ATMs qualify for 60% depreciation as they function as computers, and directed the AO to allow the higher rate.

7. Disallowance of Lease Rentals on Vehicles:
The AO disallowed lease rentals on vehicles, treating the principal component as capital in nature. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. However, the tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in I.C.D.S. Ltd vs CIT and other precedents, held that the assessee was entitled to deduct the lease rentals as revenue expenditure.

8. Disallowance of Offshore Expenses:
The assessee chose not to press this ground. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed it as not pressed.

9. Addition of Offshore Expenses u/s 28(iv) of the Act:
Similar to the previous issue, the assessee did not press this ground, leading to its dismissal by the tribunal.

10. Levy of Interest u/s 234B, 234C, 234D, and Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act on Account of Offshore Expenses:
These grounds were deemed consequential and did not require separate adjudication.

Conclusion:
The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, with the tribunal providing specific directions for each issue based on the existing legal precedents and detailed factual analysis. The order was pronounced in open court on 13-4-2016.

---