« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  ITAT Cuts ?4.85 Lakh Penalty After ?14.02 Lakh Interest Income Was Missed in ITR  ITR filed under old regime, tax calculated under new regime; Delhi ITAT gives taxpayer relief  ITAT Delhi Quashes Tax Notice on AMU PG Student’s ?18.34 Lakh Stipend, Declares It Tax-Free Under Section 10(16)  Advance tax deadline September 15: What happens if you missed the previous instalment payment?  How much gold jewellery can you keep at home? Nagpur ITAT explains rules on ownership, gifts, taxability  ?5.31 lakh TDS refund allowed by ITAT Delhi: Why absence of an original ITR did not block the taxpayer  Missed the ITR Filing Deadline? How to Claim Your Income Tax Refund and Correct Mistakes Before December 31, 2026  GST Return Preparation & ITC Analysis with TallyPrime (Hinglish Session)  GST Return Preparation & ITC Analysis with TallyPrime (Hinglish Session)  GST Return Preparation & ITC Analysis with TallyPrime (Hinglish Session)  Income-Tax Department Moves to Bring Greater Certainty to International Tax Cases «  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.