https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386154 The High Court ruled in favor of the Respondent on the interpretation of Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, stating that the issue had been settled in a previous case. Guarantee charges were not considered an international transaction, and corporate guarantee fees were not addressed as the transaction was not deemed international. Expenses for the DRUPA Exhibition were allowed under Section 37 of the Act, and reimbursement to a subsidiary for marketing expenses was not subject to tax deduction at source. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions related to guarantee charges and corporate guarantee fees, while other issues were dismissed based on established legal principles and precedents. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386154 The High Court ruled in favor of the Respondent on the interpretation of Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, stating that the issue had been settled in a previous case. Guarantee charges were not considered an international transaction, and corporate guarantee fees were not addressed as the transaction was not deemed international. Expenses for the DRUPA Exhibition were allowed under Section 37 of the Act, and reimbursement to a subsidiary for marketing expenses was not subject to tax deduction at source. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions related to guarantee charges and corporate guarantee fees, while other issues were dismissed based on established legal principles and precedents. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386154