TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bank which has its Head Office abroad. During the year under consideration, it had received interest of Rs. 21,34,211/- from its Head Office. Although, the said interest was credited by the assessee to the P&L account, the same was reduced in the computation of total income filed along with the return of income claiming that it is not income chargeable to tax being received from self. The A.O. did not accept this claim of the assessee and following the stand taken on the similar issue in the earlier years, he added the interest received by the assessee from its Head Office to its total income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on this issue following his appellate orders in assessee's own case for the earlier years on the similar issue. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Representatives of both the sides have agreed that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn. Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax (IT) (2012) 136 ITD 66 (Mum)[SB] wherein it was held that the Indian branch (PE) of a foreign bank (GE) being part of the GE was not a separate and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the A.O. therefore may be directed to give appropriate relief to the assessee on this issue in A.Y. 2006-07 in order to avoid double addition. In our opinion, such direction cannot be given for A.Y. 2006-07 as the appeal for the said year is not before us. In any case, the D.R.P. has already given a direction to the A.O. to give such appropriate relief in A.Y. 2006-07 after necessary verification and the assessee has filed an application u/s 154 of the Act before the A.O. seeking implementation of the said direction. Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal is therefore dismissed. 9. In ground No. 1 of its appeal, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the A.O. to find out whether the assessee considers the income at the time of sale of securities as business income or capital gains and accordingly treat the "broken period interest" as capital expenditure forming part of cost of acquisition if the income on sale is treated as capital gains or treat the same as revenue expenditure allowable as deduction if the income on sale is treated as business income. 10. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Representatives of both the sides have agreed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant debt is written off by the assessee as irrecoverable in its books of account. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra), we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of bad debts written off and dismiss ground No. 2 of Revenue's appeal. 14. In ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of transaction charges of Rs. 5,19,297/- made on Nostro account u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. 15. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that a similar issue was involved in assessee's own case for the earlier years and the same has been decided by the Tribunal consistently in favour of the assessee in the said years including the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2004-05 which was decided vide order dated 13th September, 2013 passed in ITA No. 1609/Mum/2008. As noted by the Tribunal in its orders, the transaction charges paid on Nostro Account were in the nature of bank charges for maintaining the accounts with banks outside India. These charges wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal (LOD) No. 1890 of 2012. Respectfully following the decisions of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal as well as that of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and dismiss ground No. 4 of the Revenue's appeal. 19. In ground No. 5, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the A.O. to allow the repeat claim of the assessee for deduction on account of bad debts written off amounting to Rs. 21,75,000/- in the year under consideration in case any authority reverses the decision of the Tribunal allowing the said claim for A.Y. 1995-96. 20. During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that its claim for deduction on account of bad debts written off amounting to Rs. 21.75 lacs has been allowed by the Tribunal in A.Y. 1995-96 being assessment year in which the said debts were written off. It was contended that a direction may, however, be given to the A.O. to allow the deduction on account of such bad debts in A.Y. 2005-06 in case any authority reverses the decision of the Tribunal for A.Y. 1995-96 a....