Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1061 to 1080 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC ruled that Transfer Pricing adjustments framework agreed under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) between US and India cannot be applied to non-US transactions. The court emphasized that MAP resolutions are based on consensus between competent authorities of contracting states and cannot be extrapolated to transactions outside its scope. Arm's Length Price for non-US transactions must be determined under Section 92C and Rule 10B. The ITAT's direction to apply US MAP framework to non-US transactions was overturned as it effectively imposed a negotiated settlement where no consensus existed with other countries' tax authorities. The framework's application would improperly foreclose an assessee's right to dispute TP adjustments in materially different situations.
HC ruled that Transfer Pricing adjustments framework agreed under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) between US and India cannot be applied to non-US transactions. The court emphasized that MAP resolutions are based on consensus between competent authorities of contracting states and cannot be extrapolated to transactions outside its scope. Arm's Length Price for non-US transactions must be determined under Section 92C and Rule 10B. The ITAT's direction to apply US MAP framework to non-US transactions was overturned as it effectively imposed a negotiated settlement where no consensus existed with other countries' tax authorities. The framework's application would improperly foreclose an assessee's right to dispute TP adjustments in materially different situations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
