<?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 adjustments upheld under s.143(3), s.144C(13) and s.92CA(1); Project Office deemed executing arm; s.9/Art.7 attribution affirmed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93225</link>
    <description>ITAT upholds the assessment under s.143(3) read with s.144C(13), finding the reference under s.92CA(1) valid and the TPO acted within jurisdiction; the assessment order is not void and Grounds 1-3 are dismissed. The Project Office is characterized as merely an executing arm of the Head Office; transfer pricing adjustments for onshore services are sustained as the taxpayer failed to demonstrate arm&#039;s-length remuneration. For offshore supplies, the Tribunal concludes the Project Office&#039;s post-supply obligations created a taxable nexus in India, justifying attribution under s.9 and Article 7 of the India-China DTAA. The CUP method is rejected as the MAM due to lack of strict comparability; the impugned TP adjustments are consequently upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:44:07 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:44:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=857532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Transfer pricing adjustments upheld under s.143(3), s.144C(13) and s.92CA(1); Project Office deemed executing arm; s.9/Art.7 attribution affirmed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93225</link>
      <description>ITAT upholds the assessment under s.143(3) read with s.144C(13), finding the reference under s.92CA(1) valid and the TPO acted within jurisdiction; the assessment order is not void and Grounds 1-3 are dismissed. The Project Office is characterized as merely an executing arm of the Head Office; transfer pricing adjustments for onshore services are sustained as the taxpayer failed to demonstrate arm&#039;s-length remuneration. For offshore supplies, the Tribunal concludes the Project Office&#039;s post-supply obligations created a taxable nexus in India, justifying attribution under s.9 and Article 7 of the India-China DTAA. The CUP method is rejected as the MAM due to lack of strict comparability; the impugned TP adjustments are consequently upheld.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:44:07 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>