Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96363 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.