Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Limitation in customs appeals permits exclusion for bona fide refund proceedings, enabling restoration of Bill of Entry assessment challenges on merit...
Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
281 to 300 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
This case deals with transfer pricing adjustments made by the tax authorities regarding international transactions involving sale of Paclitaxel, Disodium Pamidronate, and purchase of Methylene Chloride Soluble (MCS). The tax officer rejected the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by the assessee and applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP). The appellate authorities upheld the assessee's use of TNMM for Paclitaxel and Disodium Pamidronate, considering factors u/r 10B(2) of the Income Tax Rules. For MCS, the tax officer determined the cost price per kg as Rs. 32, while the assessee claimed Rs. 4648 per kg based on a cost certificate. The appellate authorities accepted the assessee's cost certificate in the absence of any material challenging its veracity. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the factual findings of the lower authorities.
This case deals with transfer pricing adjustments made by the tax authorities regarding international transactions involving sale of Paclitaxel, Disodium Pamidronate, and purchase of Methylene Chloride Soluble (MCS). The tax officer rejected the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by the assessee and applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP). The appellate authorities upheld the assessee's use of TNMM for Paclitaxel and Disodium Pamidronate, considering factors u/r 10B(2) of the Income Tax Rules. For MCS, the tax officer determined the cost price per kg as Rs. 32, while the assessee claimed Rs. 4648 per kg based on a cost certificate. The appellate authorities accepted the assessee's cost certificate in the absence of any material challenging its veracity. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the factual findings of the lower authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
