Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96262 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 concerning the software development services segment, the ITAT held that the Transfer Pricing Officer had not dealt with the five comparables remitted for reconsideration, and that the later DRP consideration did not cure the failure to follow the earlier appellate direction in time. The defect was treated as an irregularity requiring correction, not as a basis to annul the assessment. The Assessing Officer was therefore directed to exclude Acropetal Technologies, E-Zest Solutions, E-Infochips, ICRA Techno Analytics and Persistent Systems and recompute the arm's length price adjustment; the assessment was otherwise left undisturbed.
In a transfer pricing dispute concerning the software development services segment, the ITAT held that the Transfer Pricing Officer had not dealt with the five comparables remitted for reconsideration, and that the later DRP consideration did not cure the failure to follow the earlier appellate direction in time. The defect was treated as an irregularity requiring correction, not as a basis to annul the assessment. The Assessing Officer was therefore directed to exclude Acropetal Technologies, E-Zest Solutions, E-Infochips, ICRA Techno Analytics and Persistent Systems and recompute the arm's length price adjustment; the assessment was otherwise left undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.