<?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>2024 (1) TMI 697 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448298</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that dividend distribution tax under s.115-O is an additional income-tax payable by the domestic company at the statutory rate, and the DTAA dividend rate cap applicable to the non-resident shareholder does not limit such liability unless the treaty expressly extends protection to the payer; the claim for refund of excess DDT was therefore rejected. On disallowance of reimbursement of professional expenses claimed under s.37, the Tribunal found the evidentiary record insufficient and, to secure justice, restored the matter to the AO to permit production and verification of supporting documents, resulting in remand. On TP, it upheld use of TNMM (not CUP) for royalty, relying on the assessee&#039;s own precedent and TPO&#039;s remand finding, and sustained deletion of adjustment. It also upheld that management fees were at ALP under TNMM and not stewardship, sustaining deletion of the NIL-ALP adjustment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=740182" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 697 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448298</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that dividend distribution tax under s.115-O is an additional income-tax payable by the domestic company at the statutory rate, and the DTAA dividend rate cap applicable to the non-resident shareholder does not limit such liability unless the treaty expressly extends protection to the payer; the claim for refund of excess DDT was therefore rejected. On disallowance of reimbursement of professional expenses claimed under s.37, the Tribunal found the evidentiary record insufficient and, to secure justice, restored the matter to the AO to permit production and verification of supporting documents, resulting in remand. On TP, it upheld use of TNMM (not CUP) for royalty, relying on the assessee&#039;s own precedent and TPO&#039;s remand finding, and sustained deletion of adjustment. It also upheld that management fees were at ALP under TNMM and not stewardship, sustaining deletion of the NIL-ALP adjustment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>