Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 4827 
Join Channel 
