Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
In transfer pricing comparability analysis for a manufacturing segment, the ITAT treated the Safe Harbour definitions of core and non-core auto components as a guiding aid for FAR analysis even though the assessee had not opted for Safe Harbour Rules. Because the assessee manufactured shock absorbers in the core auto component segment, only functionally similar comparables were acceptable. Helmet and accessory manufacturers, Eicher Motors, and Special Engineering Services were excluded for functional dissimilarity; Nifco was also excluded because its related party transactions exceeded 25%, despite otherwise being in the automotive component space.
In transfer pricing comparability analysis for a manufacturing segment, the ITAT treated the Safe Harbour definitions of core and non-core auto components as a guiding aid for FAR analysis even though the assessee had not opted for Safe Harbour Rules. Because the assessee manufactured shock absorbers in the core auto component segment, only functionally similar comparables were acceptable. Helmet and accessory manufacturers, Eicher Motors, and Special Engineering Services were excluded for functional dissimilarity; Nifco was also excluded because its related party transactions exceeded 25%, despite otherwise being in the automotive component space.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.