Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Transfer pricing adjustment arising from royalty payments requires benchmarking by the most appropriate traditional transaction method; where exact identical comparables exist the CUP method should be applied, but selected comparables must be functionally comparable and not mere local manufacturers or brand developers. The impugned comparables were held inappropriate and the matter is remitted to AO/TPO to re-benchmark afresh after affording the assessee hearing and considering the submitted TPAR; if no exact comparables receiving bundled services are found, benchmarking should proceed under TNMM using proper comparables.
Transfer pricing adjustment arising from royalty payments requires benchmarking by the most appropriate traditional transaction method; where exact identical comparables exist the CUP method should be applied, but selected comparables must be functionally comparable and not mere local manufacturers or brand developers. The impugned comparables were held inappropriate and the matter is remitted to AO/TPO to re-benchmark afresh after affording the assessee hearing and considering the submitted TPAR; if no exact comparables receiving bundled services are found, benchmarking should proceed under TNMM using proper comparables.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
