Tribunal held that  by becoming part of global network of professional firms, it was easier to get work of international clients which were referred by firms of other companies from other countries. Similarly, the assessee may also refer its clients to its associated firm in other countries where the clients may require professional services. The use of the name D was in itself sufficient to justify the business necessity of the subscription charges. Once these were reimbursement of expenses, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. The assessee produced debit notes issued by DHS, Mumbai as supporting evidence. The assessee had to pay subscription fees through DHS, Mumbai for this purpose to DTT. However, as DHS Mumbai made the payment after deducting tax at source and the assessee only reimburses its share of expenses, tax was not required to be deducted again in respect of its reimbursement of share of expenses. Tribunal also held that  the criminal complaint was filed against the partner of the assessee-firm in a matter which related to the business of the firm. In such circumstances, the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards defending the action in the name of the partner was deductible business expenditure.  (AY. 2010-11)