Section 44C of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.60

Section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 60 (Deduction of head office expenditure in case of non- residents) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 60 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 44C is CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (291 ITR 482), cited in 166 of the 152 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44C

CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
291 ITR 482 · 2007 · Supreme Court
166
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that the 'project completion method' and the 'percentage of completion method' are recognized accounting methods for ascertaining profit for contracts. The case affirms these methods in the context of contract accounts.

CIT v. Lever India Exports Ltd.
78 Taxmann.com 88 · 2017 · High Court
111
citing judgments

A Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) must adhere to prescribed methods under Section 92C for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP); an ALP determination at Nil or an adjustment using the 'Other Method' is unsustainable without proper comparability analysis. The TPO's jurisdiction is confined to ALP determination, respecting the commercial expediency of the assessee's business strategy, such as shared advertisement expenditure.

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. DDIT
136 ITD 66 · 2012 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

Interest income received by a foreign bank's Head Office or Overseas Branch is not taxable in India where Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement applies, clarifying the scope of taxability for such entities under DTAAs.

CIT v. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd.
262 ITR 55 · 2003 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Section 44C of the Income Tax Act does not apply to expenses exclusively incurred by a foreign bank's branch office in India. The provision applies only to common head office expenses that require allocation across various entities.

ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.
130 ITD 137 · 2011 · ITAT
52
citing judgments

Interest income, such as on income-tax refunds or fixed deposits, derived by a foreign entity with a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is taxable under DTAA if the debt-claim is effectively connected or attributable to the PE. For DTAA purposes, the terms 'attributable' and 'effectively connected' are considered to have the same meaning.

CIT v. Bank of Tokyo Ltd.
71 Taxmann 85 · 1993 · High Court
30
citing judgments

The refund of guarantee commission for the unexpired period of a guarantee contract, where the contract is revoked prematurely, is a valid deduction for the assessee-bank.

ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.
11 Taxmann.com 70 · 2011 · High Court
29
citing judgments

The Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Clough Engineering Ltd. interprets treaty provisions and the expression 'in connection with PE' for taxability. It is not applicable when income is offered under domestic provisions and not disputed.

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn v. Deputy Director of Income-tax (IT), Range-2(1), Mumbai
19 Taxmann.com 364 · 2012 · Reported
26
citing judgments

Interest received by an Indian branch from its head office is not taxable as it represents profit from oneself, and expenditure incurred by the head office for the branch is not deductible from the branch's income.

ABN Amro Bank NV v. CIT
343 ITR 81 · 2012 · High Court
20
citing judgments

Interest payments made by an Indian branch to its head office are not taxable in India when they are in the nature of intra-entity adjustments and not income arising in India.

ABN AMRO Bank NV v. ADIT
97 ITD 89 · 2005 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Interest paid by an Indian branch of a bank to its overseas head office is not allowable as a deduction. This is because the payment is not considered chargeable to tax in India, and therefore, Section 195 TDS provisions are not attracted.

Judgments on Section 44C

DDIT (It) -4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Societe International De Telecommunication Aeronautiques SC (Sita), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and CO of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 668/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 668/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Societe Internationael De Tax, (It)-4(2)(2), Telecommunications Room No. 1613, 16 Th Floor, Aeronautiques Sc (Sita) Air India Building, Nariman C/O, A.F.L. House, Ground Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 021 Floor Lok Bharti Complex, Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcs2907Q प्रत्याक्षेप M./ Co No. 81/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 668/Mum/2018 For Ay 2012-13) Societe Internationael De Dy. Commissioner Of Telecommunications Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(2), Room No. 1613, 16 Th Floor, Aeronautiques Sc (Sita) C/P, A.F.L. House, Ground Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Floor Lok Bharti Complex, Point, Mumbai-400 021 Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nishant Samaiya, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11-06-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2019

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Samaiya, DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR
Section 143(3)