Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional similarity and reliable current-year segmental data. Bilcare Ltd. was excluded because of diversified operations, unavailable segmental data, and its pharmaceutical packaging profile, which differed from paper-based aseptic packaging for food and drink products. Karur KCP Packaging Ltd. was excluded because it produced kraft paper and polypropylene bags principally for the cement industry, making its products materially dissimilar. Earlier-year segmental data could not support current-year inclusion where relevant data was unavailable. The Tribunal's fact-based comparability findings disclosed neither error nor perversity, so no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed; the separate Revenue appeal issue remained open.
Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional similarity and reliable current-year segmental data. Bilcare Ltd. was excluded because of diversified operations, unavailable segmental data, and its pharmaceutical packaging profile, which differed from paper-based aseptic packaging for food and drink products. Karur KCP Packaging Ltd. was excluded because it produced kraft paper and polypropylene bags principally for the cement industry, making its products materially dissimilar. Earlier-year segmental data could not support current-year inclusion where relevant data was unavailable. The Tribunal's fact-based comparability findings disclosed neither error nor perversity, so no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed; the separate Revenue appeal issue remained open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.