<?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>Transfer pricing adjustment deleted; cash payments to villagers disallowed; ad-hoc disallowance on expenses upheld.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84087</link>
    <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled as follows: Transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA(3) for determining arm&#039;s length price on interest paid to a related party was deleted. As the order was passed after April 1, 2017, it is covered by the ratio of M/s Texport case, and the addition treating the transaction as a specified domestic transaction is unsustainable. The disallowance u/s 40A(3) for cash payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- to villagers was upheld. The applicability of Section 40A(3) would exclude only cases covered u/r 6DD, and the genuineness of parties or payments was not doubted. The ad-hoc disallowance of 5% on various expenses like travel, promotion, lodging, and pooja expenses was upheld. Since the expenses were supported by self-mad.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:58:08 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:58:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783288" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Transfer pricing adjustment deleted; cash payments to villagers disallowed; ad-hoc disallowance on expenses upheld.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84087</link>
      <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled as follows: Transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA(3) for determining arm&#039;s length price on interest paid to a related party was deleted. As the order was passed after April 1, 2017, it is covered by the ratio of M/s Texport case, and the addition treating the transaction as a specified domestic transaction is unsustainable. The disallowance u/s 40A(3) for cash payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- to villagers was upheld. The applicability of Section 40A(3) would exclude only cases covered u/r 6DD, and the genuineness of parties or payments was not doubted. The ad-hoc disallowance of 5% on various expenses like travel, promotion, lodging, and pooja expenses was upheld. Since the expenses were supported by self-mad.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:58:08 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>