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" ?
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.