Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
