Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Sections 92A(1) and 92A(2) require a harmonious reading: the statutory circumstances in section 92A(2), including business dependence under section 92A(2)(g), do not independently establish an associated-enterprise relationship without participation in management, control or capital under section 92A(1). Commercial dependence or distribution exclusivity alone is insufficient absent evidence of ownership, voting rights, managerial participation or financial control. For internal CUP analysis, contractual differences do not disqualify an uncontrolled transaction unless they materially affect the royalty rate and cannot be eliminated through reasonably accurate, objectively verifiable adjustments. Royalty benchmarking was remanded to examine those differences and adjustments; if CUP is unreliable, the most appropriate method must be independently selected.
Sections 92A(1) and 92A(2) require a harmonious reading: the statutory circumstances in section 92A(2), including business dependence under section 92A(2)(g), do not independently establish an associated-enterprise relationship without participation in management, control or capital under section 92A(1). Commercial dependence or distribution exclusivity alone is insufficient absent evidence of ownership, voting rights, managerial participation or financial control. For internal CUP analysis, contractual differences do not disqualify an uncontrolled transaction unless they materially affect the royalty rate and cannot be eliminated through reasonably accurate, objectively verifiable adjustments. Royalty benchmarking was remanded to examine those differences and adjustments; if CUP is unreliable, the most appropriate method must be independently selected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
