Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC held that Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was appropriate for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP) for power transfer between eligible and non-eligible units u/s 80IA. The court affirmed that Rs. 4.39 per kWh, being the rate at which assessee supplied excess power to UPPCL, constituted a valid internal uncontrolled transaction and was correctly accepted as ALP. Following precedent from Jindal Steel case, HC confirmed that State Electricity Board rates for industrial consumers represent market value u/s 80IA(8). The regulated nature of electricity market necessitates comparable transactions to be materially similar without price-affecting differences. Matter resolved in assessee's favor, validating their ALP computation methodology and transfer pricing adjustments.
HC held that Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was appropriate for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP) for power transfer between eligible and non-eligible units u/s 80IA. The court affirmed that Rs. 4.39 per kWh, being the rate at which assessee supplied excess power to UPPCL, constituted a valid internal uncontrolled transaction and was correctly accepted as ALP. Following precedent from Jindal Steel case, HC confirmed that State Electricity Board rates for industrial consumers represent market value u/s 80IA(8). The regulated nature of electricity market necessitates comparable transactions to be materially similar without price-affecting differences. Matter resolved in assessee's favor, validating their ALP computation methodology and transfer pricing adjustments.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
