<?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>Minimum alternate tax exclusions for pre-amendment banking companies and expatriate Indian branch salaries remain outside head office expenditure limits.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101772</link>
    <description>Minimum alternate tax provisions under section 115JA did not apply to a banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act before the Finance Act 2012 amendment, following the stated position on the successor provision, section 115JB. Salary paid outside India to expatriate employees posted with an Indian branch permanent establishment was not head office expenditure because the employees were employed in India; the statutory limitation on head office expenditure under section 44C therefore did not apply. The appeal proceeded only on issues concerning allocated direct expenses and NRI Desk expenses, while the other questions were not entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:07:12 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:07:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Minimum alternate tax exclusions for pre-amendment banking companies and expatriate Indian branch salaries remain outside head office expenditure limits.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101772</link>
      <description>Minimum alternate tax provisions under section 115JA did not apply to a banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act before the Finance Act 2012 amendment, following the stated position on the successor provision, section 115JB. Salary paid outside India to expatriate employees posted with an Indian branch permanent establishment was not head office expenditure because the employees were employed in India; the statutory limitation on head office expenditure under section 44C therefore did not apply. The appeal proceeded only on issues concerning allocated direct expenses and NRI Desk expenses, while the other questions were not entertained.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:07:12 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>