IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1397/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bank Of India Assistant Commissioner of

8th Floor, Income-tax-2(1)(1), Taxation Department, Star Mumbai Vs.

House, C-5, 'G'-Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 (PAN: AAACB0472C)

(Assessee) (Respondent)

ITA No. 1549/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner of Bank Of India Income-tax-2(1)(1), 8th Floor, Mumbai Vs. Taxation Department, Star House, C-5, 'G'-Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 (PAN: AAACB0472C)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Shri C. Naresh, CA Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals filed by assessee and revenue are against the order of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050212290(1), dated 28.02.2023 passed against the assessment order by DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 31.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

1. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax 2(1)(1) ["ACIT"] has erred in making disallowance of Rs.32,76,03,857 u/s. 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") towards expenditure incurred in relation to income claimed exempt u/s. 10 of the Act and the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said disallowance up to Rs.10,87,05,359/- u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D(iii). The Appellant Bank prays that the learned ACIT be directed not to make disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of Rs.10,87,05,359/- towards expenditure incurred in relation to income claimed exempt u/s. 10 of the Act and reduce the total income under normal provisions of the Act accordingly.

(B) Without prejudice to Ground 1(A) above, assuming your Honours is of the view that the contention of the Appellant Bank is not acceptable, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT be directed to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A in respect of expenses (other than interest) Treasury Division of the Bank to Rs.24,88,588/- (being proportionate expenses suo-moto disallowed in the return of income) and reduce the total income accordingly.

2. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in not allowing exclusion of profits of foreign branches of the Appellant Bank of Rs.972,39,02,562 u/s. 90 of the Act read with respective Double Tax Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) and the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by ACIT. The learned ACIT be directed to exclude the profits of foreign branches of the Appellant Bank of Rs.972,39,02,562 u/s. 90 of the Act read with respective DTAAS and reduce the total income under normal provisions of the Act accordingly.

(B) Without prejudice to the contention that income of foreign branches is to be excluded in computing total income as per Section 90 of Income-Tax Act, even if the income is to be taxed in India, then the income which is to be included in total income will be the Income computed as per provisions of Income-tax laws of respective countries and not the income computed as per provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not considering the same. The learned ACIT be directed to consider the same and reduce the total income accordingly.

(C) The carry forward foreign tax credit of Rs. 182.64 crore ought to be set off against the tax payable for the year since it is only the reduced losses form AY 2012-13 i.e., the losses as reduced by foreign income which has been set off against