Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5741 to 5760 of 96257 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 comparables were tested on functional and...
Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocation.
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
Transfer pricing comparables were tested on functional and factual suitability: India Tourism Development Corporation Limited was remanded for fresh examination because the loss-maker label was based on a misquoted record and profit had been shown in a relevant year; the healthcare segment of Inhouse Production Ltd. was directed to be included because segmental comparability was established; and Elbit Diagnostics Limited remained excluded because its operational circumstances made it an unsuitable comparable despite the persistent-loss reasoning failing. The Tribunal also directed working capital adjustment in line with the DRP's binding direction, accepted the assessee's no-risk status on a cost-plus, direction-driven model, and rejected objections to use of current-year data and the standard plus/minus 5 percent tolerance benefit.
Transfer pricing comparables were tested on functional and factual suitability: India Tourism Development Corporation Limited was remanded for fresh examination because the loss-maker label was based on a misquoted record and profit had been shown in a relevant year; the healthcare segment of Inhouse Production Ltd. was directed to be included because segmental comparability was established; and Elbit Diagnostics Limited remained excluded because its operational circumstances made it an unsuitable comparable despite the persistent-loss reasoning failing. The Tribunal also directed working capital adjustment in line with the DRP's binding direction, accepted the assessee's no-risk status on a cost-plus, direction-driven model, and rejected objections to use of current-year data and the standard plus/minus 5 percent tolerance benefit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.