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 partially allowed the taxpayer's appeal concerning comparable selection for transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal excluded Tata Elxsi Limited (significant intangibles owner), Persistent Systems Limited (diversified activities), Infosys Limited (brand value, R&D expenditure), Mindtree Limited (excessive onsite revenue), and Akshay Software Technologies Limited (ERP implementation services) as non-comparable to the assessee's captive software development services. However, the ITAT retained Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited, Infobeans Technologies Limited, and Cybage Software Private Limited as valid comparables, rejecting the assessee's functional dissimilarity arguments. The Tribunal directed inclusion of Maveric Systems Limited and Harbinger Systems Pvt. Limited, finding them functionally similar despite R&D expenditure or database availability concerns.
The ITAT partially allowed the taxpayer's appeal concerning comparable selection for transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal excluded Tata Elxsi Limited (significant intangibles owner), Persistent Systems Limited (diversified activities), Infosys Limited (brand value, R&D expenditure), Mindtree Limited (excessive onsite revenue), and Akshay Software Technologies Limited (ERP implementation services) as non-comparable to the assessee's captive software development services. However, the ITAT retained Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited, Infobeans Technologies Limited, and Cybage Software Private Limited as valid comparables, rejecting the assessee's functional dissimilarity arguments. The Tribunal directed inclusion of Maveric Systems Limited and Harbinger Systems Pvt. Limited, finding them functionally similar despite R&D expenditure or database availability concerns.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.