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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In transfer pricing under TNMM, functionally dissimilar companies and those failing accepted filters cannot be retained as comparables merely because they were initially selected by the assessee. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Manipal Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., E-Care India Pvt. Ltd. and Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. were directed to be excluded from the final comparable set for the back-office support services segment. The Tribunal also construed section 144C(13) as requiring the final assessment to be completed within one month from the end of the month in which DRP directions are received; because the order was passed after that period, it treated the assessment as time-barred, invalid and quashed it.
In transfer pricing under TNMM, functionally dissimilar companies and those failing accepted filters cannot be retained as comparables merely because they were initially selected by the assessee. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Manipal Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., E-Care India Pvt. Ltd. and Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. were directed to be excluded from the final comparable set for the back-office support services segment. The Tribunal also construed section 144C(13) as requiring the final assessment to be completed within one month from the end of the month in which DRP directions are received; because the order was passed after that period, it treated the assessment as time-barred, invalid and quashed it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
