Residual food-preparation classification places fermented Nata De Coco outside fruit-jelly categories, changing its GST treatment across notified peri...
Settlement application eligibility requires a pending assessment when filed, preventing an extra prior-eligibility condition from blocking considerati...
Reassessment for unreturned property sales survives where transfer information, non-filing, and unsupported exemption claims establish a prima facie l...
Page of 4886
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
521 to 540 of 97714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Mumbai held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) unjustifiably rejected the benchmarking analysis done by the assessee for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of services. The TPO's adhoc estimation lacked proper basis and reasoning, while the assessee's detailed analysis and need and benefit test were found to be satisfactory. The TPO's rejection of the benchmarking using the associated enterprise as a tested party was deemed incorrect, as the foreign associated enterprise was accepted as a tested party for benchmarking. The TPO's adhoc determination of TP adjustment was rejected, and the MAT credit entitlement issue was directed for further verification. The disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D was deleted as the assessee did not claim dividend income as exempt.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) unjustifiably rejected the benchmarking analysis done by the assessee for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of services. The TPO's adhoc estimation lacked proper basis and reasoning, while the assessee's detailed analysis and need and benefit test were found to be satisfactory. The TPO's rejection of the benchmarking using the associated enterprise as a tested party was deemed incorrect, as the foreign associated enterprise was accepted as a tested party for benchmarking. The TPO's adhoc determination of TP adjustment was rejected, and the MAT credit entitlement issue was directed for further verification. The disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D was deleted as the assessee did not claim dividend income as exempt.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
