https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465677 For TP adjustment on agency commission paid to AEs, the Tribunal held that the taxpayer failed to discharge the onus of proving actual services rendered, as the emails produced reflected only general order and delivery communications and did not evidence marketing, customer acquisition, collections, negotiations, or strategy support. In the absence of service evidence and commensurate benefit, benchmarking the ALP of commission at nil was upheld, and pleas of res judicata/consistency were rejected because TP scrutiny from later years required fresh ALP verification; the adjustment was sustained. On deduction under s.80JJAA, the Tribunal held that the statute allows 30% deduction for three consecutive years and that restricting it to the first year was erroneous; the issue was remanded to the AO for verification and allowance for the subsequent two years if conditions are met. en-us Wed, 31 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:58:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465677 For TP adjustment on agency commission paid to AEs, the Tribunal held that the taxpayer failed to discharge the onus of proving actual services rendered, as the emails produced reflected only general order and delivery communications and did not evidence marketing, customer acquisition, collections, negotiations, or strategy support. In the absence of service evidence and commensurate benefit, benchmarking the ALP of commission at nil was upheld, and pleas of res judicata/consistency were rejected because TP scrutiny from later years required fresh ALP verification; the adjustment was sustained. On deduction under s.80JJAA, the Tribunal held that the statute allows 30% deduction for three consecutive years and that restricting it to the first year was erroneous; the issue was remanded to the AO for verification and allowance for the subsequent two years if conditions are met. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465677