<?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>Unilateral APA applied to AY2013-14 for AMP reimbursement; TDS under s.195 and disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) remitted for re-verification</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93032</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld that a unilateral APA, covering AYs 2016-17 to 2020-21 and rolled back to AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, applies to AY 2013-14 for the issue of reimbursement of AMP expenses; accordingly, appeals of the assessee and revenue on that issue were dismissed. On alleged TDS defaults under s.195 and consequent disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for payments to non-residents, the ITAT found material facts regarding the nature of services, cost-plus markup and the &quot;make available&quot; contention were not on record; the claims warranted re-verification. The ITAT set aside the AO&#039;s and CIT(A)&#039;s orders and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:38 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Unilateral APA applied to AY2013-14 for AMP reimbursement; TDS under s.195 and disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) remitted for re-verification</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93032</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld that a unilateral APA, covering AYs 2016-17 to 2020-21 and rolled back to AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, applies to AY 2013-14 for the issue of reimbursement of AMP expenses; accordingly, appeals of the assessee and revenue on that issue were dismissed. On alleged TDS defaults under s.195 and consequent disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for payments to non-residents, the ITAT found material facts regarding the nature of services, cost-plus markup and the &quot;make available&quot; contention were not on record; the claims warranted re-verification. The ITAT set aside the AO&#039;s and CIT(A)&#039;s orders and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:38 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>