Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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.