Article 7(4) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section Article 7(4), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Standard Chartered Bank v ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal, 2026)
ITATCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
The officer has treated expatriate salaries paid by our London head office as head office expenditure and capped them under s.44C. Is that correct, and does the treaty's non-discrimination article get me out of s.44C altogether?
On the first question, no. Section 44C restricts only executive and general administrative expenditure incurred outside India in connection with the management of the non-resident's affairs; salary of expatriate employees deputed to and working exclusively for the India branch is not head office expenditure merely because the head office paid it first. On the second, the Tribunal declined to hold that Article 26(2) of the India-UK treaty knocks out s.44C in every case — that has to be decided on the nature of the expenditure and the facts, read with Article 7(4).
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.