Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Minimum alternate tax provisions under section 115JA did not...
Minimum alternate tax exclusions for pre-amendment banking companies and expatriate Indian branch salaries remain outside head office expenditure limits.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Minimum alternate tax provisions under section 115JA did not apply to a banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act before the Finance Act 2012 amendment, following the stated position on the successor provision, section 115JB. Salary paid outside India to expatriate employees posted with an Indian branch permanent establishment was not head office expenditure because the employees were employed in India; the statutory limitation on head office expenditure under section 44C therefore did not apply. The appeal proceeded only on issues concerning allocated direct expenses and NRI Desk expenses, while the other questions were not entertained.
Minimum alternate tax provisions under section 115JA did not apply to a banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act before the Finance Act 2012 amendment, following the stated position on the successor provision, section 115JB. Salary paid outside India to expatriate employees posted with an Indian branch permanent establishment was not head office expenditure because the employees were employed in India; the statutory limitation on head office expenditure under section 44C therefore did not apply. The appeal proceeded only on issues concerning allocated direct expenses and NRI Desk expenses, while the other questions were not entertained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
