Posts

Showing posts from December, 2025

Case Law (SC) – Section 44C applies to ‘head office expenditure’ regardless of whether it is common expenditure or expenditure incurred exclusively for the Indian branches. Accordingly, the allowable deduction is restricted to the least of the following two amounts: (i) an amount equal to 5% of the adjusted total income; or (ii) the amount of head office expenditure specifically attributable to the business or profession of the assessee in India.

  DIT v. American Express Bank Ltd. [2025 INSC 1431] dated 15.12.2025. ISSUE BEFORE COURT IS: - Whether Section 44C of the Income Tax Act merely covers ‘ common expenditure ’ incurred by the head office attributable to an assessee’s business in India or would also include ‘ exclusive expenditure ’ incurred by the head office for the Indian branches . DECISION: - “ 86. A conspectus of our legal discussion regarding Section 44C of the Act, 1961, is as under: a) Section 44C is a special provision that exclusively governs the quantum of allowable deduction for any expenditure incurred by a non-resident assessee that qualifies as ‘head office expenditure’. b) For an expenditure to be brought within the ambit of Section 44C, two broad conditions must be satisfied: (i) The assessee claiming the deduction must be a non-resident; and (ii) The expenditure in question must strictly fall within the definition of ‘head office expenditure’ as provided in the Explanation to the Sect...

Case Law (SC) – Deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act on Dividend, Interest on short-term deposits in banks and Service Charge are not allowable by employing the narrowest possible connective verb "derived from" and coupling it with an exhaustive definition of "long-term finance" in the Explanation where the Legislature has explicitly excluded ancillary, incidental, or second-degree sources of income.

  National Cooperative Development Corporation v. ACIT [2025 INSC 1414] dated 10.12.2025. ISSUE BEFORE COURT ARE: - A. Re: Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the objective of the 1995 Finance Act amendment . ............................................................7  B. Re: Interpretation of the phrase “derived from” ................................10  C. Re: Dividend received on redeemable preference shares................14  D. Re: Interest on short-term deposits in banks....................................16  E. Re: Service Charge on Sugar Development Fund loans ..................19  IV. Conclusion.........................................................................................20 DECISION: - “First issue: “12. The Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 1995, as delineated above, explicitly states that the objective of such amendment was to limit the deduction of 40% only to the income derived from providing long-term...