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 held that the TPO's ad-hoc 50% adjustment to RHQ charges lacked a suitable comparable and did not comply with Rule 10AB or section 92C, rendering the benchmarking unsustainable; the TPO failed to apply any prescribed method or to bring a comparable uncontrolled price on record when invoking the "Other Method," and therefore the ALP determination was void. On the facts and law the Tribunal accepted the Taxpayer's aggregation/TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method and directed deletion of the entire transfer-pricing adjustment relating to allocation of RHQ charges, noting the AO/TPO's non-compliance with statutory provisions and absence of rebuttal material from the Revenue.
ITAT held that the TPO's ad-hoc 50% adjustment to RHQ charges lacked a suitable comparable and did not comply with Rule 10AB or section 92C, rendering the benchmarking unsustainable; the TPO failed to apply any prescribed method or to bring a comparable uncontrolled price on record when invoking the "Other Method," and therefore the ALP determination was void. On the facts and law the Tribunal accepted the Taxpayer's aggregation/TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method and directed deletion of the entire transfer-pricing adjustment relating to allocation of RHQ charges, noting the AO/TPO's non-compliance with statutory provisions and absence of rebuttal material from the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.