Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
SC held that Section 44C applies to all "head office expenditure" of a non-resident, whether common or incurred exclusively for Indian branches, thereby subjecting such expenditure to the statutory ceiling. It rejected the restrictive construction excluding exclusive expenditure and disapproved the contrary view of the Bombay HC in Emirates Commercial Bank as not laying down the correct law. SC clarified that the statutory Explanation, read with the mischief rule, is broad and inclusive, and the term "attributable" does not create a common/exclusive dichotomy. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue, and the matters were remanded to ITAT for limited verification under the tripartite test.
SC held that Section 44C applies to all "head office expenditure" of a non-resident, whether common or incurred exclusively for Indian branches, thereby subjecting such expenditure to the statutory ceiling. It rejected the restrictive construction excluding exclusive expenditure and disapproved the contrary view of the Bombay HC in Emirates Commercial Bank as not laying down the correct law. SC clarified that the statutory Explanation, read with the mischief rule, is broad and inclusive, and the term "attributable" does not create a common/exclusive dichotomy. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue, and the matters were remanded to ITAT for limited verification under the tripartite test.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
