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...
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.