Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The ITAT held that three proposed comparables (Comparable A,...
Three comparables excluded as functionally dissimilar; assessee's 15.25% margin arm's-length under Section 92C; Section 10AA deduction reexamined under Section 154
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The ITAT held that three proposed comparables (Comparable A, Comparable B, Comparable C) are functionally dissimilar to the assessee and must be excluded from the comparable set. Comparable A was engaged in product development, owned significant intangibles and derived substantial non-service revenue; Comparable B was principally a packaged-software trader and geospatial services provider; Comparable C was predominantly a distributor with a materially different cost and employee profile. On exclusion of these entities, the assessee's operating margin of 15.25% falls within the permissible arm's-length range under section 92C, and no transfer-pricing adjustment survives. The AO was directed to re-examine and rectify the denied deduction claim under section 10AA pursuant to the assessee's section 154 application.
The ITAT held that three proposed comparables (Comparable A, Comparable B, Comparable C) are functionally dissimilar to the assessee and must be excluded from the comparable set. Comparable A was engaged in product development, owned significant intangibles and derived substantial non-service revenue; Comparable B was principally a packaged-software trader and geospatial services provider; Comparable C was predominantly a distributor with a materially different cost and employee profile. On exclusion of these entities, the assessee's operating margin of 15.25% falls within the permissible arm's-length range under section 92C, and no transfer-pricing adjustment survives. The AO was directed to re-examine and rectify the denied deduction claim under section 10AA pursuant to the assessee's section 154 application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
