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" ?
ITAT ruled that the attribution of additional income to the assessee's project office (PE) in India was improper. The Tribunal determined that transactions between the Italian headquarters and Indian PE qualified as international transactions subject to transfer pricing regulations. The AO erroneously attributed 50% of total receipts to the PE without conducting proper Functional, Asset and Risk (FAR) analysis or referring the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Tribunal noted that major functions and risks were assumed in Italy, and the assessee had already conducted a transfer pricing study demonstrating arm's length allocation. Following Article 7 principles that treat PE as a distinct enterprise, ITAT held that no further attribution beyond the assessee's allocation was required, as transfer pricing principles had been properly applied.
ITAT ruled that the attribution of additional income to the assessee's project office (PE) in India was improper. The Tribunal determined that transactions between the Italian headquarters and Indian PE qualified as international transactions subject to transfer pricing regulations. The AO erroneously attributed 50% of total receipts to the PE without conducting proper Functional, Asset and Risk (FAR) analysis or referring the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Tribunal noted that major functions and risks were assumed in Italy, and the assessee had already conducted a transfer pricing study demonstrating arm's length allocation. Following Article 7 principles that treat PE as a distinct enterprise, ITAT held that no further attribution beyond the assessee's allocation was required, as transfer pricing principles had been properly applied.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
