Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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.