Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The dispute concerns whether a domestic divestment of a support...
International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enterprises not deemed international, appeal allowed
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The dispute concerns whether a domestic divestment of a support services business between two resident associated enterprises can be treated as an international transaction or a deemed international transaction under transfer pricing Chapter X. The tribunal reasoned that section 92B(2) requires a transaction with a person other than an associated enterprise, so a transaction between two AEs does not satisfy that statutory gateway; the respondent's reliance on substance over form and alleged prior non-resident influence was rejected as immaterial to the statutory prerequisite. Consequently, section 92B(2) did not apply and the transaction was not a deemed international transaction, allowing the appeal.
The dispute concerns whether a domestic divestment of a support services business between two resident associated enterprises can be treated as an international transaction or a deemed international transaction under transfer pricing Chapter X. The tribunal reasoned that section 92B(2) requires a transaction with a person other than an associated enterprise, so a transaction between two AEs does not satisfy that statutory gateway; the respondent's reliance on substance over form and alleged prior non-resident influence was rejected as immaterial to the statutory prerequisite. Consequently, section 92B(2) did not apply and the transaction was not a deemed international transaction, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
