2025 (8) TMI 1308 - AT - Income Tax

Ruling upholds taxation of foreign branch income, orders remand on forex restatement for fresh hearing; education cess disallowed

Indian Bank, Accounts Department – Corporate Office Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1 (1), Chennai And The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1 (1), Chennai Versus Indian Bank, Accounts Department – Corporate Office

ITAT CHENNAI - AT upheld the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) in bringing the income of the taxpayer's foreign branches in Singapore and Sri Lanka to tax, ... Addition of income of the foreign branches at Singapore and Sri Lanka - claimed as an exempt income of the assessee - whether credit method or exemption method shall apply in the case of a resident Indian, where he has an permanent establishment outside India also in respect of its business? - HELD THAT:- As per Tribunal order in assessee’s own case [2016 (3) TMI 1361 - ITAT CHENNAI] we are inclined to accept the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by bringing to tax the income of the foreign branches located at Singapore and Sri Lanka. Thus, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. Foreign currency fluctuation arising on account of restatement of foreign branches not been offered to tax by the assessee bank in consonance with the accounting standards ICBS-VI - As perused the orders of authorities below and written submissions of the assessee and notes that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings didn’t give any show-cause notice to the assessee before rejecting the claim of the assessee. Therefore, there is per-se violation of natural justice. Hence, we are inclined to remit this issue/matter back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after hearing the assessee. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Allowance of cess as deduction - computation of income, claimed deduction for education cess under the head “Any other amount allowable as deduction” - Claim disallowed by the AO - CIT(A) was pleased to allow the same as relying case of Sesa Goa Ltd. [2020 (3) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - We cannot agree with CIT(A) since it is noted that that the Hon’ble Supreme Court [2024 (4) TMI 806 - SC ORDER] has reversed the view of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Goa in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra) by order dated 15.04.2024, wherein, the Apex Court, in view of the amendment by way of insertion of an explanation brought in the Act by Finance Act, 2022 in section 40(a)(ii) of the Act (supra) held that education cess cannot be allowed as an expenditure/deduction. Therefore, we reverse the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the Revenue on this issue. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether income of foreign branches (Singapore and Sri Lanka) of a resident bank is to be excluded from Indian taxable income under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) (exemption method) or included and relieved only by foreign tax credit (credit method). 2. Whether foreign currency translation reserve (FCTR) arising on restatement of foreign branch financial statements (claimed Rs. 56.67 crores) is taxable in India and, if so, whether the entire reserve or only portion relating to monetary items is taxable; and whether failure to afford opportunity of substantiation requires remand. 3. Whether education cess claimed as a deduction from business income is allowable given the statutory amendment to section 40(a)(ii) and subsequent higher-court treatment reversing earlier High Court view allowing such deduction. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Taxability of foreign branch profits under DTAA (exemption v. credit) Legal framework: For residents, Indian law taxes global income; relief for double taxation is provided under section 90 by applying DTAA provisions. DTAA provisions relevantly address business profits and methods for elimination of double taxation (exclusion/exemption or credit), and designate taxing rights vis-à-vis permanent establishments (PEs). Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on Coordinate Bench decisions in the assessee's own earlier years and on decisions of other Benches holding that where DTAA provisions (and subsequent notifications) prescribe/operate the credit method, income of foreign PEs must be included in Indian return and relieved only by foreign tax credit. Earlier pre-2004 decisions favouring exclusion were held not binding for later years. Interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer interpreted DTAA articles (including business profits and double taxation relief articles) to mean that Article on business profits (Article 7) does not automatically oust Indian taxation; it restricts source-country taxation to profits attributable to PE but does not grant exclusive exemption from resident-country tax. The AO and Tribunal emphasized applicable DTAA articles with express credit-method language (e.g., provisions stating India shall allow as a deduction an amount equal to foreign tax paid) and notifications under section 90/90A clarifying relief in accordance with treaty methods. Coordinate-Bench authority in the assessee's prior years was held to have considered similar treaty language and concluded income must be included in Indian return with relief by way of credit. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where DTAA and implementing notifications provide for credit method explicitly, resident's foreign branch profits are includible in Indian total income and relieved only by foreign tax credit; Article on business profits (PE) does not automatically mandate exclusion for resident in India. Obiter - Observations on broader policy of source-versus-residence taxation and references to other case law not essential to the decision. Conclusion: The Tribunal, following Coordinate Bench precedent and treaty interpretation, confirmed inclusion of foreign branch income in Indian taxable income and dismissal of the assessee's ground seeking exemption under DTAA; the ground was dismissed. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Taxability of foreign currency translation reserve (FCTR) and remand for natural justice Legal framework: Accounting standard AS 11 and Income Computation and Disclosure Standard (ICDS) VI govern recognition and translation of foreign currency items. ICDS-VI distinguishes monetary and non-monetary items; exchange differences on monetary items are recognized in profit or loss for the year, whereas exchange differences on non-monetary items are not recognized in profit or loss. Section 43A and Rule 115 may modify recognition for tax purposes. Taxability depends on whether ICDS/IT provisions require inclusion and whether exchange differences are realized or unrealized. Precedent treatment: The assessee relied on accounting principles that non-integral foreign operations' translation reserve (FCTR) represents unrealized translation differences accumulated in equity and not income until realization. Tribunal noted that ICDS-VI could require adjustment in computing taxable income and that only exchange differences relating to monetary items are recognized as income under ICDS-VI. Interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer added the entire FCTR because foreign branch incomes were added back; the assessee contended that only monetary-item exchange differences should be taxable and non-monetary items included in FCTR should not. Critically, the Tribunal found a procedural defect: AO did not serve a show-cause before rejecting the claim, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. Given this failure and the complex interplay between AS 11 and ICDS-VI as to monetary v. non-monetary items, the Tribunal declined to resolve the substantive taxability on the record and remitted the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication after hearing the assessee. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Denial of opportunity and absence of show-cause notice vitiates the assessment on this issue, requiring remand for fresh adjudication with opportunity to be heard. Obiter - Comments comparing AS 11 and ICDS-VI principles and the assessee's contentions on monetary/non-monetary split were indicative but not determinative. Conclusion: The ground concerning FCTR is allowed for statistical purposes and remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard; substantive taxability deferred to fresh proceedings. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Allowability of education cess as business deduction Legal framework: Deductibility of expenditures is governed by sections 30-38 and the general provision section 37(1); section 40(a)(ii) disallows certain payments not constituting business expenditure. Legislative amendment (Finance Act 2022) inserted an explanation into section 40(a)(ii) clarifying treatment of cess/surcharge. When a DTAA or subsequent judicial pronouncement interacts with statutory amendment, the amendment and higher-court rulings govern. Precedent treatment: The Assessing Officer disallowed the cess, viewing it as a charge on profit akin to tax and not an allowable deduction. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the deduction relying on a High Court decision favorable to allowability. Subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed that favourable High Court decision after consideration of the 2022 amendment, holding that education cess is not allowable as expenditure/deduction. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the apex court has reversed the High Court judgment relied upon by the CIT(A) and expressly considered the amendment to section 40(a)(ii), holding that education cess cannot be allowed as deduction. On that basis the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s allowance and restored the Assessing Officer's disallowance. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Following the higher court's reversal and the statutory amendment, education cess is not deductible as business expenditure; the Revenue's appeal is allowed on this issue. Obiter - Discussion of theoretical distinction between tax and expenditure in section 37(1) context is explanatory. Conclusion: Deduction claimed for education cess is disallowed in view of legislative amendment and reversal by higher authority; Tribunal allows the Revenue's ground. OVERALL OUTCOME Assessee's appeal: Partly allowed for statistical purposes (FCTR issue remanded); other substantive grounds dismissed (foreign branch income inclusion confirmed). Revenue's appeal: Allowed on the issue of education cess deduction. Delay in Revenue's filing condoned on satisfaction of reasonable cause.