Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
