The High Court dismissed the Department’s appeals. On appeals to the Supreme Court, allowing the appeals, that section 44C does not create a distinction between common and exclusive head office expenditure. The authorities had not satisfactorily dealt with the question whether the expenditure in question actually constituted “head office expenditure” as defined in the statute. There was no factual finding on whether the expenses fulfilled the three specific criteria elucidated in the judgment. Consequently, the matters were to be remanded to the Tribunal for the limited purpose of verifying whether the disputed expenditure satisfied the tripartite test necessary to qualify as “head office expenditure” under the Explanation to section 44C of the Act. As regards the expenditure incurred outside India, the\u00a0 Authorities have not recorded a factual finding.\u00a0 Matters remanded to the Tribunal\u00a0 (AY. 1997-98, 2003-04)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 44C: Non-residents-Head office expenditure-Broad and inclusive-No indication that “exclusive expenditure”-expenditure exclusively incurred for branch in India, to be excluded from its ambit-“Attributable to”-Encompasses both shared expenses allocated to India branches and exclusive expenses incurred for India branches-Expense was common expense or exclusively for Indian branch not material so long as expense incurred for business or profession-Allowable as deduction-Expenditure incurred outside India-Authorities have not recorded factual finding-Matters remanded to the Tribunal-“Attributable”-“Exclusive”-“Attributable to”-“Derived from”-Interpretation of taxing statues-Strict interpretation-DTAA-India-United States of America. [S.37(1), Art. 7(3),] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fJg","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60466","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60466"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60466\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60467,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60466\/revisions\/60467"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}