<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (4) TMI 354 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212683</link>
    <description>A UAE free zone entity with separate corporate status and limited liability under its incorporation documents was treated as a company under section 2(17) and not as the assessee&#039;s proprietary concern, so the related addition was deleted. Transfer pricing adjustments on sales to the UAE entity and commission to a UK entity were rejected because the UAE entity was found to be a distributor bearing inventory and credit risks, and the benchmark used was not a valid comparability. The section 14A disallowance was sustained only to the extent supported by the assessee&#039;s own computation, with the balance deleted. Commission paid to a non-resident agent was held not to attract section 40(a)(ia) because no Indian operations were shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 354 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212683</link>
      <description>A UAE free zone entity with separate corporate status and limited liability under its incorporation documents was treated as a company under section 2(17) and not as the assessee&#039;s proprietary concern, so the related addition was deleted. Transfer pricing adjustments on sales to the UAE entity and commission to a UK entity were rejected because the UAE entity was found to be a distributor bearing inventory and credit risks, and the benchmark used was not a valid comparability. The section 14A disallowance was sustained only to the extent supported by the assessee&#039;s own computation, with the balance deleted. Commission paid to a non-resident agent was held not to attract section 40(a)(ia) because no Indian operations were shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>