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 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In a transfer pricing dispute, the Tribunal held that Onward Technologies Ltd. remained a valid comparable for benchmarking the engineering, technical and inspection services segment because the TPO/AO had accepted its segmental results and the CIT(A) had also upheld that position. The Revenue's attempt to seek exclusion of the company as functionally not comparable was rejected as misconceived, since the objection was raised for the first time before the Tribunal after acceptance at the earlier stages. The additional grounds were therefore dismissed, and the Revenue's appeal failed.
In a transfer pricing dispute, the Tribunal held that Onward Technologies Ltd. remained a valid comparable for benchmarking the engineering, technical and inspection services segment because the TPO/AO had accepted its segmental results and the CIT(A) had also upheld that position. The Revenue's attempt to seek exclusion of the company as functionally not comparable was rejected as misconceived, since the objection was raised for the first time before the Tribunal after acceptance at the earlier stages. The additional grounds were therefore dismissed, and the Revenue's appeal failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.