Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6221 to 6240 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT followed its earlier orders in the assessee's own case and applied the same transfer pricing treatment for the year under appeal. For the ITES segment, it treated the benchmarking issue as covered by precedent and allowed the assessee's challenge to the arm's length price adjustment. For receivables from associated enterprises, it directed that delayed amounts beyond 90 days be benchmarked using 3 months' average Euribor plus 200 basis points, rather than sustaining the adjustment. For imported fixed assets, it held that a nil value could not be adopted and accepted the customs-determined value as the fair value, setting aside the transfer pricing adjustment.
ITAT followed its earlier orders in the assessee's own case and applied the same transfer pricing treatment for the year under appeal. For the ITES segment, it treated the benchmarking issue as covered by precedent and allowed the assessee's challenge to the arm's length price adjustment. For receivables from associated enterprises, it directed that delayed amounts beyond 90 days be benchmarked using 3 months' average Euribor plus 200 basis points, rather than sustaining the adjustment. For imported fixed assets, it held that a nil value could not be adopted and accepted the customs-determined value as the fair value, setting aside the transfer pricing adjustment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
