Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The HC held that the petitioner was providing export of services to its US parent company, not intermediary services. The petitioner assisted the parent in business consultancy by setting up meetings with experts/clients and providing advisory services. The payment terms showed the petitioner earned 8% markup, operating independently. Following Ernst & Young, since the recipient was outside India, the services qualified as export u/s 2(6) IGST Act. The HC set aside the orders treating it as intermediary service and directed processing of the refund claim as export of services filed within limitation.
The HC held that the petitioner was providing export of services to its US parent company, not intermediary services. The petitioner assisted the parent in business consultancy by setting up meetings with experts/clients and providing advisory services. The payment terms showed the petitioner earned 8% markup, operating independently. Following Ernst & Young, since the recipient was outside India, the services qualified as export u/s 2(6) IGST Act. The HC set aside the orders treating it as intermediary service and directed processing of the refund claim as export of services filed within limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
