<?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>2021 (11) TMI 1124 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305987</link>
    <description>An ITAT Pune ruling on transfer pricing and TDS issues reiterates that an international transaction and its arm&#039;s length price cannot be presumed merely because advertising and marketing spend is higher than comparables; without proof of an arrangement for the AE&#039;s benefit, the adjustment on A&amp;M expenses was rejected. For raw material imports, the Tribunal required fresh benchmarking using third-party price evidence and confined any adjustment, if warranted, to AE transactions. It also held that salary reimbursement for deputed employees and selling discounts did not attract TDS under sections 194J or 194H, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not stand, while other claims were remitted for limited verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2023 21:14:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 1124 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305987</link>
      <description>An ITAT Pune ruling on transfer pricing and TDS issues reiterates that an international transaction and its arm&#039;s length price cannot be presumed merely because advertising and marketing spend is higher than comparables; without proof of an arrangement for the AE&#039;s benefit, the adjustment on A&amp;M expenses was rejected. For raw material imports, the Tribunal required fresh benchmarking using third-party price evidence and confined any adjustment, if warranted, to AE transactions. It also held that salary reimbursement for deputed employees and selling discounts did not attract TDS under sections 194J or 194H, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not stand, while other claims were remitted for limited verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>