Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Safe Harbour Rules could not be applied suo motu to rework segmental trading costs where the assessee had not opted for that regime and had furnished segmental accounts with allocation keys; the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer was directed to adopt the assessee's allocation after verification. An arm's length price of nil for intra-group services was also rejected because the Other Method requires a comparable uncontrolled transaction, which was not shown, and the services had already been aggregated and benchmarked under TNMM, making a separate adjustment a double count. The same reasoning invalidated the lumpsum licence fee adjustment and separate benchmarking of trademark fee. The penalty challenge was dismissed as premature.
Safe Harbour Rules could not be applied suo motu to rework segmental trading costs where the assessee had not opted for that regime and had furnished segmental accounts with allocation keys; the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer was directed to adopt the assessee's allocation after verification. An arm's length price of nil for intra-group services was also rejected because the Other Method requires a comparable uncontrolled transaction, which was not shown, and the services had already been aggregated and benchmarked under TNMM, making a separate adjustment a double count. The same reasoning invalidated the lumpsum licence fee adjustment and separate benchmarking of trademark fee. The penalty challenge was dismissed as premature.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.