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...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
