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...
The ITAT followed its co-ordinate Bench rulings in the assessee's own earlier years on materially identical facts and found no change in law or evidence to justify a different view. It held that the presence of related entities in India and the support services they rendered did not create a fixed place, service or dependent agent PE, or a business connection, so reinsurance and retrocession receipts were not taxable in India as business profits under the treaty. It also held that the support service receipts failed the make-available test because no technical knowledge, skill, know-how or process was transferred for independent future use, and the amounts were therefore not taxable as fees for technical services. The impugned additions were deleted.
The ITAT followed its co-ordinate Bench rulings in the assessee's own earlier years on materially identical facts and found no change in law or evidence to justify a different view. It held that the presence of related entities in India and the support services they rendered did not create a fixed place, service or dependent agent PE, or a business connection, so reinsurance and retrocession receipts were not taxable in India as business profits under the treaty. It also held that the support service receipts failed the make-available test because no technical knowledge, skill, know-how or process was transferred for independent future use, and the amounts were therefore not taxable as fees for technical services. The impugned additions were deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
