Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
Transfer pricing adjustment under s.92 required correct segmentation where the tax authority had aggregated marketing support/indenting and spare parts trading (AMC) as a single segment. The Tribunal held benchmarking must be performed separately for the two segments as presented by the taxpayer; the TPO must re-examine comparables and verify whether the taxpayer's results fall within the tolerance range under the proviso to s.92C(2), and the ALP determination was remanded. On non-compete fee, in light of the latest binding precedent, it was held to be revenue in nature; the AO was directed to treat it accordingly and to recompute consequential depreciation impact already claimed with the taxpayer's assistance - ITAT
Transfer pricing adjustment under s.92 required correct segmentation where the tax authority had aggregated marketing support/indenting and spare parts trading (AMC) as a single segment. The Tribunal held benchmarking must be performed separately for the two segments as presented by the taxpayer; the TPO must re-examine comparables and verify whether the taxpayer's results fall within the tolerance range under the proviso to s.92C(2), and the ALP determination was remanded. On non-compete fee, in light of the latest binding precedent, it was held to be revenue in nature; the AO was directed to treat it accordingly and to recompute consequential depreciation impact already claimed with the taxpayer's assistance - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
