« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Mock Test Papers Series - I & II for Students appearing in CA Foundation January 2027 Examination.  Income Tax Rules 2026: CBDT Introduces Revised Form 161 for Penalty Waiver, Clarifies Misreporting Categories and Taxpayer Relief  ITR Filing and Income Tax Audit Deadline Extended: 5 Critical Things Taxpayers Must Know  Filing Belated ITR for AY 2026-27? Know Which Losses You Can Carry Forward and Which You May Lose  CBDT Extends Tax Audit Report Deadline to October 21, ITR Filing Last Date to November 21 for AY 2026-27  CBDT Extends AY 2026-27 ITR Filing Deadline for Tax-Audit Cases: New Dates and Key Compliance Details  Foreign Assets Missing From Your ITR? Income Tax Department Opens One-Time Disclosure Window  Tax Audit Deadline September 30: Why AIS, TDS and GST Figures May Not Match Your ITR and What Taxpayers Should Do  Tax audit deadline September 30: Common mistakes taxpayers should avoid  Your ITR says ‘verified’, but the refund hasn’t arrived? 5 reasons why your money could be stuck  Missed the ITR Deadline but TDS Refund Is Due? Here’s How You Can Still Claim Your Money «  Corporate tax mop-up swells... Tax under different names... » I-T tribunal turns down Marubeni India's plea August, 23rd 2006 The income tax tribunal has rejected the claim of Marubeni India to allow tax paid on behalf of the employees as incentive to be adjusted as deduction. Marubeni India, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marubeni Corporation, Japan, is involved in international trading of items such as textiles, chemicals, energy and metal. According to the tribunal order, the tax paid has been rejected as deduction since there is no contractual agreement in writing between Marubeni India and Marubeni Corporation, Japan for paying the taxes for the employees on the salary they receive in Japan. Marubeni India waited for two years before making the tax payment. These employees were on the rolls of Marubeni Japan. However, their services were rendered to the firms Indian outfit, Marubeni India. Tax analysts contend that even if the judgement pertains to a single case, it might impact such informal arrangements entered into by other foreign companies who have posted their employees from their headquarters to their wholly-owned subsidiaries in India. The tribunal has held that the Japanese company should have deducted the tax in respect of salaries received by the employees outside India from the parent and paid to the Indian government. This was not done for the assessment period 1996-1998 and the Indian company paid the taxes later under an arrangement with the income tax authorities. The deduction has been claimed for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. In the order the tribunal has also clarified that there was no contractual liability since the incentive in the form of taxes paid on the salary is not expended out of necessity or need to support the trade but for commercial expediency of the companys business.