Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
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 
