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" ?
HC held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) determination is binding on the Assessing Officer (AO) and the AO cannot independently determine the arm's-length price (ALP) without complying with s.92CA(1). Where the TPO issued an order without making adjustments, the AO had no jurisdiction to reopen or revise assessment on identical material already considered by the TPO absent fresh tangible material. Consequently, the petition by the taxpayer succeeds: the AO's action was quashed, the ALP must stand as determined through the TPO process, and any assessment based on unilateral AO determination without reference to the TPO is set aside.
HC held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) determination is binding on the Assessing Officer (AO) and the AO cannot independently determine the arm's-length price (ALP) without complying with s.92CA(1). Where the TPO issued an order without making adjustments, the AO had no jurisdiction to reopen or revise assessment on identical material already considered by the TPO absent fresh tangible material. Consequently, the petition by the taxpayer succeeds: the AO's action was quashed, the ALP must stand as determined through the TPO process, and any assessment based on unilateral AO determination without reference to the TPO is set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.