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 HC dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the Tribunal's determination that the internal comparable uncontrolled price methodology was the most appropriate method for benchmarking inter-company supply of power from captive plants to non-eligible units. The Court held that market value for industrial consumers must be measured by the rates at which State Electricity Boards supply power to consumers (for purposes of Section 80IA) rather than rates at which power is sold to the Boards, and that negotiated captive-to-consumer pricing can settle below generator expectations in an unregulated transaction. The HC also affirmed application of a 0.5% corporate guarantee fee as the arm's-length benchmark, rejecting Revenue's challenge to that finding.
The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the Tribunal's determination that the internal comparable uncontrolled price methodology was the most appropriate method for benchmarking inter-company supply of power from captive plants to non-eligible units. The Court held that market value for industrial consumers must be measured by the rates at which State Electricity Boards supply power to consumers (for purposes of Section 80IA) rather than rates at which power is sold to the Boards, and that negotiated captive-to-consumer pricing can settle below generator expectations in an unregulated transaction. The HC also affirmed application of a 0.5% corporate guarantee fee as the arm's-length benchmark, rejecting Revenue's challenge to that finding.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.