Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that ;  the office of the Joint Commissioner Mumbai had clarified by his letter dated January 24, 2011 that the ICICI-Bank was an Indian resident company in terms of S.6(3)(iii) and the global income of the bank including of the offshore branch was chargeable and was assessed to tax in India. Any payment made to a resident banking company does not come within the purview of tax deduction at source in terms of the provisions of S. 194A(3)(iii) . The agreement between the assessee and the bank stated that the bank was acting as an arranger-cum-facility agent. The Singapore branch was the original lender. But the letter written by the Singapore branch stated that it was an arranger and facility agent and the lender of the loan was a group of financial institutions to be assembled by the arranger. The facts were contradictory to each other according to the assessee’s own record. Therefore the issue needed to be re examined by the Assessing Officer in the light of the claim of the assessee that the Singapore branch was the main lender. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case with further evidence. In case the Assessing Officer found that the Singapore branch was the lender of external commercial borrowing there was no default in deduction of tax at source under section 201(1) and (1A) . Hence the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the issue afresh in the light of the evidence filed by the assessee. ( AY.2009 10 , 2011-12)