Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The ITAT allowed the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue and refer it to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of arm's length price based on the most suitable method. The ITAT observed that the assessee neither provided detailed workings for the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nor did the CIT(A) perform any such calculation. The ITAT found force in the revenue's argument that since the assessee did not provide services to any party other than its Associated Enterprises (AEs) nor awarded any sub-contract to independent entities, no internal comparables were available for working under the CUP method. The ITAT distinguished the case relied upon by the assessee, as in that case, the ALP was computed by the assessee itself following the CUP method, whereas in the present case, no precise workings were provided for either CUP or Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
The ITAT allowed the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue and refer it to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of arm's length price based on the most suitable method. The ITAT observed that the assessee neither provided detailed workings for the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nor did the CIT(A) perform any such calculation. The ITAT found force in the revenue's argument that since the assessee did not provide services to any party other than its Associated Enterprises (AEs) nor awarded any sub-contract to independent entities, no internal comparables were available for working under the CUP method. The ITAT distinguished the case relied upon by the assessee, as in that case, the ALP was computed by the assessee itself following the CUP method, whereas in the present case, no precise workings were provided for either CUP or Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
