<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (5) TMI 1059 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307154</link>
    <description>Expatriate salary expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for an Indian banking branch was treated as outside the head-office expense limitation where prior binding treatment applied. Inter-office interest between the branch and head office was addressed under the applicable tax framework and treaty provisions, with related additions deleted. Deferred bank guarantee commission for the unexpired period was regarded as contingent and refundable, so no right to receive had crystallised. MAT was considered inapplicable where banking accounts were prepared under the Banking Regulation Act rather than the prescribed Companies Act format for the relevant year. Counter-guarantee commission benchmarking under TNMM was accepted because the activity involved limited functions and negligible risk, and internal bank guarantee comparables were unsuitable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2023 20:20:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 1059 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307154</link>
      <description>Expatriate salary expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for an Indian banking branch was treated as outside the head-office expense limitation where prior binding treatment applied. Inter-office interest between the branch and head office was addressed under the applicable tax framework and treaty provisions, with related additions deleted. Deferred bank guarantee commission for the unexpired period was regarded as contingent and refundable, so no right to receive had crystallised. MAT was considered inapplicable where banking accounts were prepared under the Banking Regulation Act rather than the prescribed Companies Act format for the relevant year. Counter-guarantee commission benchmarking under TNMM was accepted because the activity involved limited functions and negligible risk, and internal bank guarantee comparables were unsuitable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>