Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.