Authorization requirements for customs brokers and benami shipping bills: tribunal upholds licence revocation and penalties after COVID time limit fou...
Eligibility for notification exemption on imported fertilizers challenged; penalty, interest and confiscation set aside after voluntary payment and no...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
