Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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 
