<?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>Employee gain-sharing incentive payouts and ITES transfer-pricing comparables; payments allowed u/s43B(c), cost reallocation addition deleted</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95736</link>
    <description>Incentive payments to employees under an executive gain-sharing plan were held to be additional remuneration in the nature of bonus/incentive, not severance compensation; since the liability crystallised during the year and the unpaid portion was discharged before the return-filing due date, the expenditure was allowable under s. 43B(c) read with the first proviso, and the disallowance was deleted. For transfer pricing of an ITES provider, a high-end KPO company and a professional/accounting advisory company were excluded due to functional dissimilarity and inadequate data, while several routine ITES/BPO comparables were included based on functional similarity, availability of segmental/quarterly data, and consistency with prior years. For .....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:08 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Employee gain-sharing incentive payouts and ITES transfer-pricing comparables; payments allowed u/s43B(c), cost reallocation addition deleted</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95736</link>
      <description>Incentive payments to employees under an executive gain-sharing plan were held to be additional remuneration in the nature of bonus/incentive, not severance compensation; since the liability crystallised during the year and the unpaid portion was discharged before the return-filing due date, the expenditure was allowable under s. 43B(c) read with the first proviso, and the disallowance was deleted. For transfer pricing of an ITES provider, a high-end KPO company and a professional/accounting advisory company were excluded due to functional dissimilarity and inadequate data, while several routine ITES/BPO comparables were included based on functional similarity, availability of segmental/quarterly data, and consistency with prior years. For .....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:08 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>