Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 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.