Charitable sports promotion: sponsorship receipts alone did not defeat registration where funds supported tournaments and player development activitie...
Overdue associated-enterprise receivables: debt-free status defeated notional-interest adjustment, while employee stock-option costs qualified as busi...
Retrospective assessment-limitation amendments validate final orders while contemporaneous segment data governs transfer-pricing comparability and tol...
Transfer pricing adjustments must track international transactions, while unsupported AMP adjustments and unsuitable manufacturing comparables require...
Transfer-pricing adjustments must reflect functional comparability, working-capital effects, and avoid duplicating interest on associated-enterprise r...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking requires exclusion of comparables...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and margin findings.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Transfer-pricing benchmarking requires exclusion of comparables with financially illogical gross-profit-to-sales ratios of 100 per cent or more, applying the principle that super-profit-making companies should not be retained for comparability analysis. The inclusion of four such entities was set aside and remitted to the TPO for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. A comparable could not be rejected for non-availability of its annual report where that report had been furnished to the TPO; its inclusion in the benchmarking exercise was directed. The TPO's positive gross-profit-margin computation for another comparable was also found erroneous because the record showed a negative margin, requiring fresh determination.
Transfer-pricing benchmarking requires exclusion of comparables with financially illogical gross-profit-to-sales ratios of 100 per cent or more, applying the principle that super-profit-making companies should not be retained for comparability analysis. The inclusion of four such entities was set aside and remitted to the TPO for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. A comparable could not be rejected for non-availability of its annual report where that report had been furnished to the TPO; its inclusion in the benchmarking exercise was directed. The TPO's positive gross-profit-margin computation for another comparable was also found erroneous because the record showed a negative margin, requiring fresh determination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.