<?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>Short deduction, corporate guarantee fee, and section 14A presumptions: no substantial question of law on covered issues.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100779</link>
    <description>Short deduction of tax at source did not warrant disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), and the related royalty-characterisation questions were treated as academic. Corporate guarantee commission was upheld at 0.5% because a corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise is not comparable to a bank guarantee, so no substantial question of law arose. On section 14A, where the assessee&#039;s own and other non-interest-bearing funds exceeded tax-free investments, a presumption arose that the investments came from interest-free funds, defeating interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Only the re-framed question under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) concerning investments yielding exempt income during the year was entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:09:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:09:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Short deduction, corporate guarantee fee, and section 14A presumptions: no substantial question of law on covered issues.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100779</link>
      <description>Short deduction of tax at source did not warrant disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), and the related royalty-characterisation questions were treated as academic. Corporate guarantee commission was upheld at 0.5% because a corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise is not comparable to a bank guarantee, so no substantial question of law arose. On section 14A, where the assessee&#039;s own and other non-interest-bearing funds exceeded tax-free investments, a presumption arose that the investments came from interest-free funds, defeating interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Only the re-framed question under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) concerning investments yielding exempt income during the year was entertained.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:09:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>