1 1.itxa1630.12.doc sbw IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY rt ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1630 OF 2012 ou Commissioner of Income Tax 2 ..Appellant Versus Bank of India ..Respondent C ........... Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant. Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for Respondent. h ........... igCORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND S. P. DESHMUKH, JJ. H DATE : 7th JANUARY, 2015. P.C.: y This Appeal challenges order passed by Income Tax ba Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai, in Income Tax Appeal No.2781 of 2011. assessment year in question is 2003 04. om 2] Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, submits that this Appeal raises substantial questions of law and particularly as formulated in memo of Appeal by Revenue. He would submit that Tribunal B committed error in holding that operations of Respondent Bank in foreign countries denotes it having permanent establishment outside India. income attributable to this branch cannot be taxed in India. 1/3 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 16:12:36 ::: 2 1.itxa1630.12.doc Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that this finding is rendered without adverting rt to relevant factual materials and proof of payment of taxes in relation to establishment abroad. Therefore, Appeal deserves to be ou admitted. 3] On other hand, Mr. Sanjiv Shah, learned counsel, appearing for C Respondent Assessee brings to our notice series of orders passed by Tribunal in identical circumstances and in case of this very Assessee. h He submits that Tribunal followed that orders when identical ig circumstances were pointed out. permanent establishments or H branches outside India generated income and which was subjected to law pertaining to tax on income abroad. Once factual position is not disputed by Revenue, then, benefit of Double Taxation y ba Avoidance Agreement has been rightly extended. He relies upon findings in Tribunal's order impugned in this Appeal and particularly om para 28 thereof. 4] With assistance of Mr. Suresh Kumar and Sanjiv Shah, we have perused memo of Appeal. Assessing Officer was satisfied that B benefit of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement is admissible provided proof is produced in relation to payment of taxes by Assessee abroad. In other words, if Assessee has permanent establishment abroad, then, Assessee would have to produce evidence 2/3 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 16:12:36 ::: 3 1.itxa1630.12.doc regarding payment of taxes pertaining to income of these rt establishments abroad. On production of such evidence, Assessee would be entitled to benefit. That evidence was always available and ou as noted by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal. In circumstances, authorities did nothing but follow their earlier C orders based on identical facts and circumstances. finding of fact, therefore, cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law h apparent on face of record. Appeal does not raise any ig substantial question of law. It is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, H dismissed. No costs. y ba (S. P. DESHMUKH, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) om wadhwa B 3/3 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 16:12:36 ::: Commissioner of Income Tax­-2 v. Bank of India