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 upheld the CIT(A)'s exclusion of several companies as comparables for transfer pricing adjustment due to functional dissimilarities, differing service portfolios, and failure to meet turnover and export earning filters. Companies engaged in high-end KPO services, software development, or possessing significant brand value were deemed functionally distinct from the assessee, an ITeS provider. The Tribunal noted that entities such as Acropetal Technologies Ltd., Accentia Technologies Ltd., ICRA Online Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd., Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd., and iGate Global Solutions Ltd. did not meet comparability criteria due to differences in business activities, service offerings, profitability fluctuations, or scale of operations. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s exclusion of these companies from the comparable set for determining the arm's length price.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s exclusion of several companies as comparables for transfer pricing adjustment due to functional dissimilarities, differing service portfolios, and failure to meet turnover and export earning filters. Companies engaged in high-end KPO services, software development, or possessing significant brand value were deemed functionally distinct from the assessee, an ITeS provider. The Tribunal noted that entities such as Acropetal Technologies Ltd., Accentia Technologies Ltd., ICRA Online Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd., Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd., and iGate Global Solutions Ltd. did not meet comparability criteria due to differences in business activities, service offerings, profitability fluctuations, or scale of operations. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s exclusion of these companies from the comparable set for determining the arm's length price.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
