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...
In transfer pricing benchmarking for SWD and captive ITeS services, comparables were excluded where functional dissimilarity, significant intangibles and brand value, unreliable segmental data, RPT failures, extraordinary events, abnormal margins and high turnover undermined comparability; high receivables alone was not treated as enough to reject an otherwise functionally similar company. Akshay Software Technologies was remanded for fresh FAR verification because service descriptions alone cannot justify exclusion, while negative working capital adjustment was held impermissible for a captive cost-plus service provider not bearing such risk. The specific claims for Sasken Communication Technologies and Informed Technologies India were also restored for fresh examination, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
In transfer pricing benchmarking for SWD and captive ITeS services, comparables were excluded where functional dissimilarity, significant intangibles and brand value, unreliable segmental data, RPT failures, extraordinary events, abnormal margins and high turnover undermined comparability; high receivables alone was not treated as enough to reject an otherwise functionally similar company. Akshay Software Technologies was remanded for fresh FAR verification because service descriptions alone cannot justify exclusion, while negative working capital adjustment was held impermissible for a captive cost-plus service provider not bearing such risk. The specific claims for Sasken Communication Technologies and Informed Technologies India were also restored for fresh examination, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
