Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Transfer pricing dispute over benchmarking of AMP expenses and appropriate ALP method: the Bright Line Test (BLT) adjustments are held legally unsustainable and deleted; the Cost Plus method is rejected as unjustified because the assessee acted as a distributor incurring routine business promotion and employee costs that should form part of trading cost; the tribunal accepts comparability under adjusted TNMM and directs an ALP uplift equal to the difference between the comparable PLI and the assessee's margin, instructing the AO to compute and apply that limited adjustment in line with the cited Sony Ericsson precedent.
Transfer pricing dispute over benchmarking of AMP expenses and appropriate ALP method: the Bright Line Test (BLT) adjustments are held legally unsustainable and deleted; the Cost Plus method is rejected as unjustified because the assessee acted as a distributor incurring routine business promotion and employee costs that should form part of trading cost; the tribunal accepts comparability under adjusted TNMM and directs an ALP uplift equal to the difference between the comparable PLI and the assessee's margin, instructing the AO to compute and apply that limited adjustment in line with the cited Sony Ericsson precedent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.