Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Cross-border payments to a US associated enterprise were...
Cross-border payments for marketing and support services: tribunal limits unsubstantiated reimbursed expenses and remits provision accounting for verification.
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
Cross-border payments to a US associated enterprise were examined for classification as fees for included services under the "make available" concept and for withholding-tax noncompliance leading to disallowance under withholding provisions. The tribunal found the nature and basis of claimed marketing, administrative and process outsourcing charges unexplained and disproportionately high (about 53% of revenue); some costs may qualify as fees for included services. Absent proper documentary bases, the tribunal directed treating separately claimed marketing expenses as allowable but limited to 20% if unsubstantiated, allowed hearing before final disallowance, and remitted accounting treatment of recurring refund provisions to the AO for verification and adjustment.
Cross-border payments to a US associated enterprise were examined for classification as fees for included services under the "make available" concept and for withholding-tax noncompliance leading to disallowance under withholding provisions. The tribunal found the nature and basis of claimed marketing, administrative and process outsourcing charges unexplained and disproportionately high (about 53% of revenue); some costs may qualify as fees for included services. Absent proper documentary bases, the tribunal directed treating separately claimed marketing expenses as allowable but limited to 20% if unsubstantiated, allowed hearing before final disallowance, and remitted accounting treatment of recurring refund provisions to the AO for verification and adjustment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.