Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
ITAT adjudicated transfer pricing dispute involving...
International Guarantee Processing Fees Dispute Resolved: TNMM Method Upheld, Transfer Pricing Adjustment Deleted Based on Consistent Judicial Precedent
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
ITAT adjudicated transfer pricing dispute involving international transaction of processing fees for guarantees. The tribunal determined TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking, consistent with prior judicial precedent in the assessee's own case. The tribunal noted procedural consistency, highlighting that identical transactions were previously accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) up to AY 2012-13. Applying principles of judicial consistency and finding no material change in underlying facts, the tribunal directed deletion of transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee's appeal was allowed, effectively nullifying the proposed transfer pricing modification and upholding the original transfer pricing methodology.
ITAT adjudicated transfer pricing dispute involving international transaction of processing fees for guarantees. The tribunal determined TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking, consistent with prior judicial precedent in the assessee's own case. The tribunal noted procedural consistency, highlighting that identical transactions were previously accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) up to AY 2012-13. Applying principles of judicial consistency and finding no material change in underlying facts, the tribunal directed deletion of transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee's appeal was allowed, effectively nullifying the proposed transfer pricing modification and upholding the original transfer pricing methodology.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.