Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Revenue's Appeal Dismissed: Arm's Length Margin, Section 10A Exemption, and Interest Income as Business Income Affirmed</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10 Versus M/s. J.P. Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Bombay HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, addressing issues such as the adoption of an Arm's Length margin ... TP Adjustment - exemption u/s 10A - Treatment to interest income - ITAT Directing to adopt 16.63% Arm’s Length margin for transaction relating to non US entities based on MAP concluded with US Tax Authorities ITAT justification in holding that exemption u/s 10A is allowable prior to the setting off, of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. ITAT justification in holding interest income as business income HELD THAT:- It is an agreed position that all these questions had came up for consideration before this Court in case of this very Assessee for the earlier assessment years [2016 (5) TMI 1627 - ITAT MUMBAI] Revenue Appeals were dismissed by an Order [2019 (4) TMI 219 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. That being the position, without recording separate reasons, this Appeal is also dismissed. The Bombay High Court, in a case involving the Revenue and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, considered several questions of law. These included issues related to the adoption of an Arm's Length margin for transactions with non-US entities based on a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) with US Tax Authorities, the allowance of exemption under Section 10A before setting off losses and depreciation, and the classification of interest income as business income. The Court noted that similar questions had been addressed in previous cases involving the same Assessee, where the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. Consequently, without separate reasons, the Court dismissed the current appeal as well.