<?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>Mutuality and head office expenditure disputes led to remand and partial relief on branch tax deductions.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100923</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that interest received from or paid to head office and overseas branches on the NOSTRO account was a self-to-self transaction governed by mutuality, so it was not taxable in the permanent establishment&#039;s hands and the related disallowance failed. On head office expenditure, it restored the matter for fresh examination because the disputed items had to be tested on the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation of the statutory concept of head office expenditure; the royalty issue was to be considered only if the items fell outside that concept. It upheld deletion of the exempt-income disallowance where surplus interest-free funds exceeded the investments, sustained deduction of broken period interest, treated ATM software expenditure as revenue, and held that income taxed on a special gross basis is not exempt income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Mutuality and head office expenditure disputes led to remand and partial relief on branch tax deductions.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100923</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that interest received from or paid to head office and overseas branches on the NOSTRO account was a self-to-self transaction governed by mutuality, so it was not taxable in the permanent establishment&#039;s hands and the related disallowance failed. On head office expenditure, it restored the matter for fresh examination because the disputed items had to be tested on the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation of the statutory concept of head office expenditure; the royalty issue was to be considered only if the items fell outside that concept. It upheld deletion of the exempt-income disallowance where surplus interest-free funds exceeded the investments, sustained deduction of broken period interest, treated ATM software expenditure as revenue, and held that income taxed on a special gross basis is not exempt income.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>