Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a limited risk service provider because it did not own the technical know-how, simulator or infrastructure needed to render the training and technical services, while the associated enterprise bore the relevant performance and commercial risks. On that factual basis, the assessee could not be treated as the principal service provider. The Tribunal then accepted the assessee's TNMM benchmarking, noting that the same functional and risk profile had been accepted in the preceding year and that there was no material change in facts. It also rejected the TPO's reliance on confidentiality restrictions as a ground to disregard the benchmarking, and deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on technical fees paid to the associated enterprise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a limited risk service provider because it did not own the technical know-how, simulator or infrastructure needed to render the training and technical services, while the associated enterprise bore the relevant performance and commercial risks. On that factual basis, the assessee could not be treated as the principal service provider. The Tribunal then accepted the assessee's TNMM benchmarking, noting that the same functional and risk profile had been accepted in the preceding year and that there was no material change in facts. It also rejected the TPO's reliance on confidentiality restrictions as a ground to disregard the benchmarking, and deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on technical fees paid to the associated enterprise.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.