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 upholds the assessment under s.143(3) read with s.144C(13), finding the reference under s.92CA(1) valid and the TPO acted within jurisdiction; the assessment order is not void and Grounds 1-3 are dismissed. The Project Office is characterized as merely an executing arm of the Head Office; transfer pricing adjustments for onshore services are sustained as the taxpayer failed to demonstrate arm's-length remuneration. For offshore supplies, the Tribunal concludes the Project Office's post-supply obligations created a taxable nexus in India, justifying attribution under s.9 and Article 7 of the India-China DTAA. The CUP method is rejected as the MAM due to lack of strict comparability; the impugned TP adjustments are consequently upheld.
ITAT upholds the assessment under s.143(3) read with s.144C(13), finding the reference under s.92CA(1) valid and the TPO acted within jurisdiction; the assessment order is not void and Grounds 1-3 are dismissed. The Project Office is characterized as merely an executing arm of the Head Office; transfer pricing adjustments for onshore services are sustained as the taxpayer failed to demonstrate arm's-length remuneration. For offshore supplies, the Tribunal concludes the Project Office's post-supply obligations created a taxable nexus in India, justifying attribution under s.9 and Article 7 of the India-China DTAA. The CUP method is rejected as the MAM due to lack of strict comparability; the impugned TP adjustments are consequently upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.