The assessee, a foreign bank incorporated in the USA and having its Branch in Mumbai, claimed that the amount of interest received by the Indian Branch from its Head office could be treated as ”income not chargeable to tax” on the principle of mutuality. The AO is treated the same as business income. On further appeal before ITAT, the assessee claimed that the issue was squarely covered in its favour by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn. v. Deputy DIT (IT) [2012] 19 taxmann.com 364/136 ITD 66 (Mumbai) (SB). The revenue filed a cross-objection raising the issue whether the provisions of section 14A would be applicable in the event it was held that the interest received by the assessee from its Head Office was not taxable in the hands of the Indian Branch office. On behalf of the revenue, reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in Oman International Bank SAOG v. JCIT [ITA Nos. 335 and 336 (Mum) of 2004, dated 22-3-2013] and CO Nos. 86 and 87/Mum/2004, which was challenged and admitted before the Bombay High Court on 28-7-2015. The regular Division Bench of ITAT expressed its inability to concur with the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench in Oman International Bank SAOG (supra) and sought the constitution of a Special Bench. The President referred the matter to the Special Bench. When the matter came up before the Special Bench, the Department objected to the constitution of the Special Bench on the ground that a similar issue was pending consideration before the Bombay High Court, and once a similar issue was pending before the High Court, the Special Bench deserved to be disbanded/discontinued. However, the ITAT held that there is no prohibition either in law or in practice that would require the Special Bench, as a rule, to stay its hands when a similar/identical issue is pending before the High Court. Hence, the ITAT held that it was not necessary to withdraw the reference and/or to deconstitute the Special Bench. [AY. 1998-99]