Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Transfer pricing adjustment for comparable selection was challenged due to functional dissimilarity. The assessee provided IT-enabled services and back-end credit card operations, while the comparables suggested were involved in Knowledge Process Outsourcing activities, leading to their exclusion. Regarding the nature of expenses for license fees, the Assessing Officer treated it as a capital asset or intangible asset. However, the court held that the right to use the software did not provide enduring benefit, and the payment was merely license fees, not acquisition of a capital asset. The assessee did not acquire ownership of the software, and after termination, rights remained with the licensor. Relying on previous decisions, the license fees paid were considered revenue expenditure deductible u/s 37. No substantial question of law was raised.
Transfer pricing adjustment for comparable selection was challenged due to functional dissimilarity. The assessee provided IT-enabled services and back-end credit card operations, while the comparables suggested were involved in Knowledge Process Outsourcing activities, leading to their exclusion. Regarding the nature of expenses for license fees, the Assessing Officer treated it as a capital asset or intangible asset. However, the court held that the right to use the software did not provide enduring benefit, and the payment was merely license fees, not acquisition of a capital asset. The assessee did not acquire ownership of the software, and after termination, rights remained with the licensor. Relying on previous decisions, the license fees paid were considered revenue expenditure deductible u/s 37. No substantial question of law was raised.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
