Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
ITAT applied consistent prior-year treatment to delete the proportionate disallowance under section 80IA for telecom services, holding that the assessee's segmental allocation issue could not justify the adjustment. It also followed the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case to hold that telecom data transmission payments to non-resident operators were not royalty, so the section 40(a)(i) disallowance for alleged non-deduction of tax was not sustainable under the treaty. The section 40(a)(ia) issue was sent back for verification because the amount had already been disallowed suo motu. On transfer pricing, the Tribunal accepted the limited risk model as consistently applied and sustained adjustment only to the extent of the shortfall in the agreed compensation.
ITAT applied consistent prior-year treatment to delete the proportionate disallowance under section 80IA for telecom services, holding that the assessee's segmental allocation issue could not justify the adjustment. It also followed the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case to hold that telecom data transmission payments to non-resident operators were not royalty, so the section 40(a)(i) disallowance for alleged non-deduction of tax was not sustainable under the treaty. The section 40(a)(ia) issue was sent back for verification because the amount had already been disallowed suo motu. On transfer pricing, the Tribunal accepted the limited risk model as consistently applied and sustained adjustment only to the extent of the shortfall in the agreed compensation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
