Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal regarding section 80IA(10) deduction denial. The AO made a downward adjustment of Rs. 10.98 crore based on transfer pricing analysis of transactions between the eligible unit and its associated enterprise. However, ITAT held that existence of an "arrangement" between the deduction-seeking unit and AE is a mandatory precondition for invoking section 80IA(10) provisions. The AO failed to establish any such arrangement before referring the matter to TPO for arm's length price computation. Following precedents from Schmetz India and Mankind Pharma, ITAT ruled that without proving an arrangement, business transactions between eligible units and AEs do not constitute Specified Domestic Transactions under section 92BA, making transfer pricing analysis inapplicable and the adjustment unsustainable.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal regarding section 80IA(10) deduction denial. The AO made a downward adjustment of Rs. 10.98 crore based on transfer pricing analysis of transactions between the eligible unit and its associated enterprise. However, ITAT held that existence of an "arrangement" between the deduction-seeking unit and AE is a mandatory precondition for invoking section 80IA(10) provisions. The AO failed to establish any such arrangement before referring the matter to TPO for arm's length price computation. Following precedents from Schmetz India and Mankind Pharma, ITAT ruled that without proving an arrangement, business transactions between eligible units and AEs do not constitute Specified Domestic Transactions under section 92BA, making transfer pricing analysis inapplicable and the adjustment unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
