Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
