Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 95714 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
