Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
