Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
