https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327302 Head office expenses attributable to Indian branches were treated as deductible under the treaty-based computation, and the domestic restriction in section 44C was not applied to deny the claim in full. For section 14A, Rule 8D was held inapplicable for the relevant pre-Rule 8D year, but a reasonable disallowance was still required and was restricted to 2% of dividend income, with the same approach followed for later years. Interest paid by an Indian branch to its head office or foreign branch was treated as a payment to self, so no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) arose. The higher tax rate contention failed, but penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not leviable because the claims were fully disclosed and the issues were debatable. en-us Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 May 2016 10:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327302 Head office expenses attributable to Indian branches were treated as deductible under the treaty-based computation, and the domestic restriction in section 44C was not applied to deny the claim in full. For section 14A, Rule 8D was held inapplicable for the relevant pre-Rule 8D year, but a reasonable disallowance was still required and was restricted to 2% of dividend income, with the same approach followed for later years. Interest paid by an Indian branch to its head office or foreign branch was treated as a payment to self, so no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) arose. The higher tax rate contention failed, but penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not leviable because the claims were fully disclosed and the issues were debatable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327302