Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 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.