Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
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.