<?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 (7) TMI 274 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755054</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai ruled on transfer pricing adjustments for equity broking services. For non-DVP segment transactions, the tribunal applied CUP method comparing weighted average commission rates between associated enterprises and third-party FII clients, determining ALP brokerage rate at 0.41% after adjusting for sales/marketing functions. Port fee charges were accepted at cost plus 25% markup as per agreement rather than CIT(A)&#039;s 15% markup. Administrative support services required no adjustment as assessee&#039;s 17.2% margin exceeded arm&#039;s length price of 13.67%. Program trades adjustment was rejected as these were third-party independent transactions. Section 14A disallowance was limited to suo-moto amount offered by assessee since Rule 8D wasn&#039;t applicable for AY 2002-03 and sufficient interest-free funds existed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2024 18:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 274 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755054</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai ruled on transfer pricing adjustments for equity broking services. For non-DVP segment transactions, the tribunal applied CUP method comparing weighted average commission rates between associated enterprises and third-party FII clients, determining ALP brokerage rate at 0.41% after adjusting for sales/marketing functions. Port fee charges were accepted at cost plus 25% markup as per agreement rather than CIT(A)&#039;s 15% markup. Administrative support services required no adjustment as assessee&#039;s 17.2% margin exceeded arm&#039;s length price of 13.67%. Program trades adjustment was rejected as these were third-party independent transactions. Section 14A disallowance was limited to suo-moto amount offered by assessee since Rule 8D wasn&#039;t applicable for AY 2002-03 and sufficient interest-free funds existed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>