Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The ITAT directed the AO/TPO to delete the addition for corporate guarantee commission assessed at 0.5% and sustained the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal rejected the protective adjustment of 0.5% as a risk-mitigation factor, holding that the assessee's advance to its associated enterprise (AE) carrying interest at 1.9%-matching the bank's rate-was consistent with arm's-length principles. The ITAT found the AO/TPO's determination of ALP flawed for failing to apply any prescribed method under s.92C and for not undertaking a benchmarking exercise or valuing the specific services received from the AE; consequently the impugned transfer pricing adjustments were set aside and the appeal allowed.
The ITAT directed the AO/TPO to delete the addition for corporate guarantee commission assessed at 0.5% and sustained the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal rejected the protective adjustment of 0.5% as a risk-mitigation factor, holding that the assessee's advance to its associated enterprise (AE) carrying interest at 1.9%-matching the bank's rate-was consistent with arm's-length principles. The ITAT found the AO/TPO's determination of ALP flawed for failing to apply any prescribed method under s.92C and for not undertaking a benchmarking exercise or valuing the specific services received from the AE; consequently the impugned transfer pricing adjustments were set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.