Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 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 considered TP Adjustment in the context of international transactions involving purchase of solar goods/lights and reimbursement of expenses and warranty costs. The TPO rejected RPM and applied TNMM as the most appropriate method. The ITAT noted that the reimbursement expenses and warranty claims were a small fraction of the total transaction value, indicating RPM as suitable. Citing precedent, the ITAT emphasized that where no value addition occurs before resale, RPM is appropriate. As the assessee was a mere reseller without value addition, RPM was upheld as the correct method. The ITAT concluded that even when combining reimbursement transactions with purchase transactions, RPM remained valid due to the significant difference in values. Consequently, the assessee succeeded on multiple appeal grounds.
The ITAT considered TP Adjustment in the context of international transactions involving purchase of solar goods/lights and reimbursement of expenses and warranty costs. The TPO rejected RPM and applied TNMM as the most appropriate method. The ITAT noted that the reimbursement expenses and warranty claims were a small fraction of the total transaction value, indicating RPM as suitable. Citing precedent, the ITAT emphasized that where no value addition occurs before resale, RPM is appropriate. As the assessee was a mere reseller without value addition, RPM was upheld as the correct method. The ITAT concluded that even when combining reimbursement transactions with purchase transactions, RPM remained valid due to the significant difference in values. Consequently, the assessee succeeded on multiple appeal grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.