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 ruled against the transfer pricing adjustment for AMP expenses, finding tax authorities failed to demonstrate that such expenses benefited the foreign AE's brand. The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure quantum alone cannot establish benefit to AEs, as brands are customer-centric rather than product-centric. Regarding royalty payments, the ITAT found the TPO's rejection of comparable agreements unjustified. Issues concerning management service fees, interest on outstanding receivables, and payments to 'Dart' were remanded to the AO/TPO for fresh determination in accordance with precedents from earlier assessment years and relevant case law, including Kusum Healthcare. All grounds were sustained either substantively or for statistical purposes.
The ITAT ruled against the transfer pricing adjustment for AMP expenses, finding tax authorities failed to demonstrate that such expenses benefited the foreign AE's brand. The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure quantum alone cannot establish benefit to AEs, as brands are customer-centric rather than product-centric. Regarding royalty payments, the ITAT found the TPO's rejection of comparable agreements unjustified. Issues concerning management service fees, interest on outstanding receivables, and payments to 'Dart' were remanded to the AO/TPO for fresh determination in accordance with precedents from earlier assessment years and relevant case law, including Kusum Healthcare. All grounds were sustained either substantively or for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.