Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Page of 4913
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 98250 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Transfer-pricing comparability for software development services...
Transfer-pricing comparability permits fresh objections and filters where software service comparables are functionally unsuitable for arm's-length pricing.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Transfer-pricing comparability for software development services requires selection of companies that meet applicable functional filters and have sufficiently comparable operations. Prior acceptance of a comparable before the Transfer Pricing Officer does not prevent an assessee from contesting it before the DRP. Diversified software-service and product companies lacking segmental information, or earning product-related income through outsourced product development, may be excluded as functionally dissimilar. Brand value and scale may materially affect comparability, supporting exclusion of a large branded company; an onsite filter may also be applied where appropriate. For accurate arm's-length price determination, the DRP may entertain objections, apply a new lawful filter, and direct inclusion or exclusion of comparables.
Transfer-pricing comparability for software development services requires selection of companies that meet applicable functional filters and have sufficiently comparable operations. Prior acceptance of a comparable before the Transfer Pricing Officer does not prevent an assessee from contesting it before the DRP. Diversified software-service and product companies lacking segmental information, or earning product-related income through outsourced product development, may be excluded as functionally dissimilar. Brand value and scale may materially affect comparability, supporting exclusion of a large branded company; an onsite filter may also be applied where appropriate. For accurate arm's-length price determination, the DRP may entertain objections, apply a new lawful filter, and direct inclusion or exclusion of comparables.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.