Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
