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...
Transfer pricing dispute over benchmarking of a guarantee commission: the article explains that the tax authority applied an ad hoc upward adjustment using a CUP-based market rate, but a tribunal relied on earlier coordinate-bench analysis that the combined guarantee fee approximated 0.69% and the assessee's allocated share (about 57%) reflected limited functions, absence of independent risk-bearing, and a back-to-back counter guarantee; applying that reasoning the tribunal found the TPO/DRP ad hoc rate untenable and deleted the upward transfer pricing adjustment to the guarantee commission for the year under review.
Transfer pricing dispute over benchmarking of a guarantee commission: the article explains that the tax authority applied an ad hoc upward adjustment using a CUP-based market rate, but a tribunal relied on earlier coordinate-bench analysis that the combined guarantee fee approximated 0.69% and the assessee's allocated share (about 57%) reflected limited functions, absence of independent risk-bearing, and a back-to-back counter guarantee; applying that reasoning the tribunal found the TPO/DRP ad hoc rate untenable and deleted the upward transfer pricing adjustment to the guarantee commission for the year under review.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
