Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
A unilateral advance pricing agreement fixing a consolidated 1.9% of net sales for royalty and fees for technical services was treated as highly persuasive guidance for comparability analysis where the transactions were similar. On that basis, the royalty and technical fee adjustment was found excessive, and the Assessing Officer was directed to cap the rate at 1.9% of net sales in line with the CBDT-accepted APA. The remaining grounds were left open or treated as consequential.
A unilateral advance pricing agreement fixing a consolidated 1.9% of net sales for royalty and fees for technical services was treated as highly persuasive guidance for comparability analysis where the transactions were similar. On that basis, the royalty and technical fee adjustment was found excessive, and the Assessing Officer was directed to cap the rate at 1.9% of net sales in line with the CBDT-accepted APA. The remaining grounds were left open or treated as consequential.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.