Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
ITAT allowed in part. It held that payments by the appellant-company to the foreign service provider for business support services do not constitute FTS under s.9(1)(vii) and, in any event, are not taxable in India by application of s.90(2) and the India-Australia treaty; the AO's disallowance under s.40(a)(i) for non-deduction u/s195 was therefore deleted. On transfer-pricing, the Tribunal upheld that receivables from associated enterprises constitute international transactions requiring benchmarking; the assessee's contention of no imputed interest (and of netting payables) was rejected for want of specific reciprocal AE-wise details. The Tribunal directed computation of imputed interest on overdue AE receivables at LIBOR + 200 bps, thereby partly allowing the appeal.
ITAT allowed in part. It held that payments by the appellant-company to the foreign service provider for business support services do not constitute FTS under s.9(1)(vii) and, in any event, are not taxable in India by application of s.90(2) and the India-Australia treaty; the AO's disallowance under s.40(a)(i) for non-deduction u/s195 was therefore deleted. On transfer-pricing, the Tribunal upheld that receivables from associated enterprises constitute international transactions requiring benchmarking; the assessee's contention of no imputed interest (and of netting payables) was rejected for want of specific reciprocal AE-wise details. The Tribunal directed computation of imputed interest on overdue AE receivables at LIBOR + 200 bps, thereby partly allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
