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...
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.