Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal, holding that penalty under s.271G for failure to furnish transfer pricing documentation cannot be levied against the German resident taxpayer. The Tribunal relied on the Procter & Gamble Home Products precedent, which established that s.271G penalties require specific defects to be identified in the documents submitted under s.92D. Since no notice under s.92D(3) was issued requiring the taxpayer to furnish information regarding its international transactions-a prerequisite for initiating s.271G penalty proceedings-the ITAT concluded that the penalty was improperly imposed and upheld the taxpayer's position.
The ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal, holding that penalty under s.271G for failure to furnish transfer pricing documentation cannot be levied against the German resident taxpayer. The Tribunal relied on the Procter & Gamble Home Products precedent, which established that s.271G penalties require specific defects to be identified in the documents submitted under s.92D. Since no notice under s.92D(3) was issued requiring the taxpayer to furnish information regarding its international transactions-a prerequisite for initiating s.271G penalty proceedings-the ITAT concluded that the penalty was improperly imposed and upheld the taxpayer's position.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.