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...
Reassessment was upheld because the original return had only...
Reassessment and fee-for-technical-services classification: reopening upheld, but certain reimbursements and mobilization charges fell outside treaty taxation.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Reassessment was upheld because the original return had only been processed under section 143(1), so there was no prior scrutiny and reopening was permissible on the recorded reasons. The Court also held that the Department could not recast the assessment on business profits or dependent agent permanent establishment, as the assessment order had ultimately taxed only fees for technical services. On reimbursement, the general plea of pure cost recovery was not accepted on the material, but freight, hire charges, meals, accommodation and travelling expenses were held not to be technical services and were excluded to that extent. Under the India-Netherlands DTAA, mobilization and demobilization charges were outside Article 12 because no technical knowledge, skill or process was made available.
Reassessment was upheld because the original return had only been processed under section 143(1), so there was no prior scrutiny and reopening was permissible on the recorded reasons. The Court also held that the Department could not recast the assessment on business profits or dependent agent permanent establishment, as the assessment order had ultimately taxed only fees for technical services. On reimbursement, the general plea of pure cost recovery was not accepted on the material, but freight, hire charges, meals, accommodation and travelling expenses were held not to be technical services and were excluded to that extent. Under the India-Netherlands DTAA, mobilization and demobilization charges were outside Article 12 because no technical knowledge, skill or process was made available.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.