https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435644 Interest credited by an Indian branch to its foreign head office was treated, on identical facts previously decided by the Tribunal, as not chargeable to tax in India; consequently, section 195 did not apply and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be sustained. On the representative assessee issue, the branch and head office were treated as the same entity for the relevant purpose, so notice under section 163 was not required. The transfer pricing adjustment on bank guarantee commission, based on an ad hoc 10% uplift, was not upheld on the existing record because proper benchmarking and FAR analysis were lacking, and the matter was restored for fresh determination. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435644 Interest credited by an Indian branch to its foreign head office was treated, on identical facts previously decided by the Tribunal, as not chargeable to tax in India; consequently, section 195 did not apply and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be sustained. On the representative assessee issue, the branch and head office were treated as the same entity for the relevant purpose, so notice under section 163 was not required. The transfer pricing adjustment on bank guarantee commission, based on an ad hoc 10% uplift, was not upheld on the existing record because proper benchmarking and FAR analysis were lacking, and the matter was restored for fresh determination. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435644