https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59418 Article 24(2) of the India-Canada treaty was applied to protect a Canadian non-resident's permanent establishment from less favourable tax treatment than resident enterprises carrying on the same activities. Section 44C, treated as a restrictive ceiling on head office expenditure rather than a mere estimation rule, could not override the treaty where it curtailed deduction of business expenditure otherwise allowable under section 37(1). The treaty non-discrimination clause prevailed over the domestic computation rule to the extent of inconsistency, so head office overheads fairly allocable to the permanent establishment remained deductible. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59418 Article 24(2) of the India-Canada treaty was applied to protect a Canadian non-resident's permanent establishment from less favourable tax treatment than resident enterprises carrying on the same activities. Section 44C, treated as a restrictive ceiling on head office expenditure rather than a mere estimation rule, could not override the treaty where it curtailed deduction of business expenditure otherwise allowable under section 37(1). The treaty non-discrimination clause prevailed over the domestic computation rule to the extent of inconsistency, so head office overheads fairly allocable to the permanent establishment remained deductible. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59418