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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
In transfer pricing comparability, Excel Infoways Ltd. was excluded because Tribunal precedent noted low employee cost and fluctuating margins, and that exclusion was upheld. Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was directed to be included in the final comparable set because it had been accepted in the assessee's own earlier year and no material change in functional profile was shown for the relevant year. The Tribunal also held that working capital adjustment must be allowed while giving effect to the order, as differences affecting comparability must be adjusted in the profit margin of independent comparables. Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed.
In transfer pricing comparability, Excel Infoways Ltd. was excluded because Tribunal precedent noted low employee cost and fluctuating margins, and that exclusion was upheld. Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was directed to be included in the final comparable set because it had been accepted in the assessee's own earlier year and no material change in functional profile was shown for the relevant year. The Tribunal also held that working capital adjustment must be allowed while giving effect to the order, as differences affecting comparability must be adjusted in the profit margin of independent comparables. Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.