Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Core procurement services rendered by a foreign group procurement hub to an Indian entity were held not to be intermediary services, because the arrangement satisfied neither the statutory two-supply character of an intermediary nor a mere facilitation role. The Tribunal treated the foreign entity as an independent contractor acting on its own account under a principal-to-principal arrangement, so the services were an import of services with place of supply in India and were taxable there, defeating the refund claim. It also held that a refund application under the GST refund framework cannot be rejected solely as an afterthought merely because tax was first paid and non-taxability was later asserted.
Core procurement services rendered by a foreign group procurement hub to an Indian entity were held not to be intermediary services, because the arrangement satisfied neither the statutory two-supply character of an intermediary nor a mere facilitation role. The Tribunal treated the foreign entity as an independent contractor acting on its own account under a principal-to-principal arrangement, so the services were an import of services with place of supply in India and were taxable there, defeating the refund claim. It also held that a refund application under the GST refund framework cannot be rejected solely as an afterthought merely because tax was first paid and non-taxability was later asserted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
