ITAT rules in favor of assessee on overseas salary, MAT, bad debts & more

The ITAT partially allowed the appeal of the assessee, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. The disallowance of salary paid overseas to expatriates was ruled in favor of the assessee based on the DTAA provisions. The non-applicability of Section 115JB (MAT) was upheld for the banking company. Other issues such as reduction for bad debts, Japanese foodstuff expenditure, applicable tax rate, wealth tax provision, interest deductions, and Section 44C deduction were also decided in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of salary paid overseas to expatriates.
2. Non-applicability of the provisions of Sec 115JB relating to Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT).
3. Reduction for write-back of provision for bad and doubtful debts and depreciation on investment.
4. Deduction for expenditure incurred on Japanese Foodstuff.
5. Applicable rate of tax.
6. Addition of provision for wealth tax while computing book profit.
7. Deduction for interest paid by Indian branches to Head Office and taxability of interest received by Head Office from Indian branches.
8. Allowance of deduction under Section 44C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Salary Paid Overseas to Expatriates:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 14,26,64,438 paid as salaries by the Head Office overseas to expatriates working in India. The CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's action, but the Delhi High Court had previously ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that such expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively by the Indian branch and were allowable under Article 7(3) of the DTAA. The ITAT followed this precedent and allowed the ground in favor of the assessee.

2. Non-Applicability of Provisions of Sec 115JB (MAT):
The assessee argued that being a banking company, the provisions of Section 115JB were not applicable. The CIT(A) had upheld the AO's contention. However, the Delhi High Court had decided in favor of the assessee, noting that the profit and loss account was not prepared in terms of Part II of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. The ITAT agreed with this reasoning and allowed the ground.

3. Reduction for Write-Back of Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts and Depreciation on Investment:
The CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue, but in a rectification order dated 26.10.2015, the issue was granted in favor of the assessee. Thus, the ITAT did not press these grounds.

4. Deduction for Expenditure Incurred on Japanese Foodstuff:
The CIT(A) had dismissed the ground, but the issue was not pressed by the assessee as it had already been granted in their favor in a rectification order. Therefore, the ITAT dismissed this ground.

5. Applicable Rate of Tax:
The CIT(A) had not upheld the assessee's contention regarding the applicable rate of tax under Article 24 of the India-Japan DTAA. The ITAT referred to its previous decision for A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09, which was against the assessee, and dismissed this ground.

6. Addition of Provision for Wealth Tax While Computing Book Profit:
The CIT(A) had deleted the addition made by the AO. The ITAT noted that if the ground regarding the non-applicability of MAT was allowed, this issue would become academic. Since the MAT ground was allowed, this ground was dismissed.

7. Deduction for Interest Paid by Indian Branches to Head Office and Taxability of Interest Received by Head Office from Indian Branches:
The CIT(A) had deleted the addition made by the AO. The Delhi High Court had ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the interest payment made by the Indian branch to its Head Office was deductible and not subject to TDS under Section 195. The ITAT followed this precedent and dismissed the ground.

8. Allowance of Deduction Under Section 44C:
The CIT(A) had allowed the deduction, and the ITAT noted that this issue was covered in favor of the assessee by DRP directions for A.Y. 2007-08. Therefore, the ITAT dismissed this ground.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee partly for statistical purposes and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 19th September 2017.

---