DCIT (IT) 1(3)(1), MUMBAI V. BNP PARIBAS SA, MUMBAI

ITA 1689/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8425 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K L KANAK
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1689/MUM./2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 13 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (I.T) CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI . APPELLANT V/S BNP PARIBAS S.A. 1, NORTH AVENUE MAKER MAXITY BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI 400 051 PAN AAACB4868Q . RESPONDENT IT A NO. 1232/MUM./2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 13 ) BNP PARIBAS S.A. 1, NORTH AVENUE MAKER MAXITY BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI 400 051 PAN AAACB4868Q . APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (I.T) CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI K.L. KANAK ASSESSEE BY : SHRI FARROKH IRANI A/W SHRI PRIYESH SHAH DATE OF HEARING 19.06.2019 DATE OF ORDER 17.07.2019 2 BNP PARIBAS S.A. O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. CAPTIONED CROSS APPEAL S ARISE OUT OF ORDER DATED 15 TH DECEMBER 2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 55, MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 13. ITA NO.1232/MUM./2018 ASSESSEES APPEAL 2 . THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE RATE OF TAX APPLICABLE TO DOMESTIC COMPANIES AND/OR CO OPERATIVE BANKS FOR A.Y. 2012 13 IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 26 (NON DISCRIMINATION) OF THE INDIA FRANCE TAX TREATY. 3 . AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE GROUND RAISED, IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER THE NON DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 26 OF THE INDIA FRANCE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA), THE RATE OF TAX (INCLUDING SURCHARGE) APPLICABLE TO DOMESTIC COMPANIES AND CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORIT IES HAVE REJECTED THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE RATE OF TAX APPLICABLE TO NON RESIDENT COMPANIES WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 . SHRI FAROOKH IRANI, THE LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE H AS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE 3 BNP PARIBAS S.A. BY THE TRIBUNAL CONSISTENTLY IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR S AND ASSESSEES APPEAL S ON THE ISSUE IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ISSUE HAS TO BE DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREED WITH THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD . AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ISSUE WHETHER THE RATE OF TAX APPLICABLE TO DOMESTIC COMPANIES AND CO OPERATIVE BANK IS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS A RECURRING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES FROM THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS . HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE LATEST ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12 IN ITA NO.444/MUM./2017, DATED 29 TH AUGUST 2018, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING ITS EARLIE R DECISION DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. OF COURSE, IT IS A FACT THAT IN SOME OF THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS ADMITTED THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE. HOWE VER, THERE BEING NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE 4 BNP PARIBAS S.A. PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSI ONER (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND RAISED IS DISMISSED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1689/MUM./2018 REVENUE S APPEAL 8 . IN GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS INDIAN BRANCH TOWARDS DATA PROCESSING FEE IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA DUE TO PRINCIPLE S OF MUTUALITY. 9 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PROVISION OF ` 23,83,82,776, TOWARDS DATA PROCESSING CHARGES PAYABLE TO BNP PARIB AS, SINGAPORE, A BRANCH OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTICING THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY DATA PROCESSING F EE SH OULD NOT BE TREATED AS ROYALTY / FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE HEAD OFFICE, HENCE, BROUGHT TO TAX IN INDIA. THOUGH , THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER STA TING THAT THE AMOUNT PAID CANNOT BE TREA TED AS ROYALTY / FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND IT IS ALSO NOT TAXABLE APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 5 BNP PARIBAS S.A. REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF LEARNED DRP FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08, ADD ED BACK THE AMOUNT OF ` 22,26,89,390. 10 . WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAVING NOTICED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 06, FOLLOWED THE SAME AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE REASONING THAT BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED , THE ISSUE HAS BE EN CONSISTENTLY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED , REVENUES APPEAL ON THE ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 07 AND 2007 08 HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 12 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREED WITH THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 13 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO TAXABILITY OF DATA PROCESSING FEE AT THE 6 BNP PARIBAS S.A. HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ROYALTY / FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES IS A RECURRING ISSUE FROM THE PRECEDING ASSESSM ENT YEARS. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE YEAR 2005 06 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.339/MUM./2019, DATED 16 TH JULY 2014, FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND HELD THAT AS PER THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, IN SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION V/S DDIT, [2012] 163 ITD 66 (MUM.)(SB), THE PAYMENT OF DATA PROCESSING FEE BEING A PAYMENT TO SELF , IS GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY, HENCE, NOT TAXABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION. THE SAME VIEW HA S BEEN EXPRESSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AS WELL AND THE LATEST ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE IS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11 IN ITA NO.1182/MUM./2015, DATED 16 TH OCTOBER 2017. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO OBSERVE , WHILE DECIDING REVENUES APP EAL ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 AND 2007 08, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. MOREOVER, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.3540/MUM./2014, DATED 31 ST MARCH 2016, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH ON DIFFERENT REASONING. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT , THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR S HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT DATA PROCESSING F EE IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION S OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION 7 BNP PARIBAS S.A. OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 14 . IN GROUNDS NO.3 AND 4, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME MADE AT THE HANDS OF THE HEAD OFFICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15 . GROUNDS NO.5 AND 6 A RE OFFSHOOTS OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUNDS NO.3 AND 4. 16 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST FROM ITS INDIAN BRANCHES CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH , THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED ADDITION, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE PROCEEDED TO TAX THE INTEREST INCOM E AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 17 . HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE ISSUE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, IN SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION (SUPRA) HELD THAT INTEREST P AID BY THE INDIAN BRANCH TO THE HEAD OFFICE BEIN G GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY IS NOT TAXABLE. ACCORDINGLY, SHE DELETED THE ADDITION. 8 BNP PARIBAS S.A. 18 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED , THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR S, WHEREIN , THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST PAID BY THE INDIAN BRANCH TO THE HEAD OFFICE BEING A PAYMEN T TO SELF IS GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY, HENCE, NOT TAXABLE. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE LATEST ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12 IN ITA NO.444/ MUM./2017, DATED 29 TH AUGUST 2018. 19 . THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , THOUGH , AGREED THAT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN ASPECTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED , AS PER SECTION 9(1)(V)(C) OF THE ACT, INTEREST INCOME IS CHARGEABLE AT THE HANDS OF THE NON RESIDENT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER IT IS THE HEAD OFFICE OF INDIAN BRANCH. HE SUBMITTED , THE AFORESAID PROVISIO N BEING A CHARGING SECTION , HAS TO BE GIVEN FULL EFFECT. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , THE EARLIER ORDERS PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITI ES HAVING IGNORED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 9(1)(V)(C) OF THE ACT , THEY DO NOT LAY DOWN THE CORRECT PROPOSITION OF LAW. FURTHER, H E SUBMITTED , LEARNED COMMISSIONER 9 BNP PARIBAS S.A. (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE WI THOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISION CONTAINED UNDER ARTICLE 12(6) OF THE INDIA FRANCE TAX TREATY. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , THE ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE RE EXAMINED AGAIN. 20 . IN REJOINDER, THE LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED , THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 9(1)(V)(C) OF THE ACT WAS EXAMINED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION (SUPRA). HENCE, IT IS NOT CORRECT ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO SUBMIT THAT THIS ASPECT WAS NOT EXAMINED. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED , EVEN THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE TR EATY PROVISIONS WERE ALSO EXAMINED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR S . THUS, HE SUBMITTED , CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED AS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE IMPUGNED AS SESSMENT YEAR. 21 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST PAID BY THE INDIAN BRANCH TO THE HEAD OFFICE IS A RECURRING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FROM PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION (SUPR A) HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT INTEREST PAID BY 10 BNP PARIBAS S.A. THE INDIAN BRANCH TO THE HEAD OFFICE BEING A PAYMENT MADE TO SELF IS GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY, HENCE, NOT TAXABLE. IN THE LATEST ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12, VIDE ITA NO.444/MUM./2017, DATED 29 TH AUGUST 2018, THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN REITERATED THE SAME VIEW. THUS, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD , THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE UP TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011 12. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT AS PER THE P ROVISION CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 9(1)(V)(C) OF THE ACT INTEREST INCOME IS TAXABLE IN INDIA AND THE APPLICABILITY OF SUCH PROVISION HAS BEEN IGN ORED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY , W E MUST OBSERVE , THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 9(1)(V)(C) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN CASE OF SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND THE SPECIAL BENCH CLEARLY AND CATEGORICALL Y HELD THAT SINCE THE INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE INDIAN BRANCH TO THE HEAD OFFICE IS A PAYMENT TO SELF , IT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX BY RELYING UPON THE PROVISION OF SECTION 9(1)(V)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, INSOFAR AS THE APPLICABI LITY OF THE AFORESAID PROVIS ION IS CONCERNED, IT STANDS SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, SPECIAL BENCH, REFERRED TO ABOVE. MOREOVER, BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 9(1)(V)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF NON RESIDENT ENGAGED IN BAN KING BUSINESS ANY INTERES T PAYABLE BY THE PE IN INDIA TO THE HEAD OFFICE WOULD BE 11 BNP PARIBAS S.A. CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. HOWEVER, THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION HAS BEEN INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2015, W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL 2016. FROM THE NOTES AND MEMORANDUM AS WELL AS CBDT CI RCULAR EXPLAINING THE OBJECT AND PURPORT OF INTRODUCING SUCH EXPLANATION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SUCH EXPLANATION WAS INTRODUCED TO OVERCOME THE EFFECT AND IMPLICATION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION (SUPRA). HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR BY THE CBDT THAT SUCH AMENDMENT BY WAY OF EXPLANATION WILL APPLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016 17 ONWARDS. THAT BEING THE CASE, AS PER T HE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL , SPECIAL BENCH IN CASE OF SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION (SUPRA), WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS I NDIAN BRANCH BEING A PAYMENT MADE TO SELF , IS NOT TAXABLE AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, IN SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND THE DECISIONS OF THE CO O RDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHICH WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW ADHERING TO THE NORMS OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN FACTS, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 12 BNP PARIBAS S.A. 22 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 23 . TO SUM UP, ASSESSEES AS WELL AS REVENUES APPEAL S ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 17.07.2019 SD/ - G. MANJUNATHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 17.07.2019 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI