Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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.