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...
The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the Tribunal's determination that the internal comparable uncontrolled price methodology was the most appropriate method for benchmarking inter-company supply of power from captive plants to non-eligible units. The Court held that market value for industrial consumers must be measured by the rates at which State Electricity Boards supply power to consumers (for purposes of Section 80IA) rather than rates at which power is sold to the Boards, and that negotiated captive-to-consumer pricing can settle below generator expectations in an unregulated transaction. The HC also affirmed application of a 0.5% corporate guarantee fee as the arm's-length benchmark, rejecting Revenue's challenge to that finding.
The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the Tribunal's determination that the internal comparable uncontrolled price methodology was the most appropriate method for benchmarking inter-company supply of power from captive plants to non-eligible units. The Court held that market value for industrial consumers must be measured by the rates at which State Electricity Boards supply power to consumers (for purposes of Section 80IA) rather than rates at which power is sold to the Boards, and that negotiated captive-to-consumer pricing can settle below generator expectations in an unregulated transaction. The HC also affirmed application of a 0.5% corporate guarantee fee as the arm's-length benchmark, rejecting Revenue's challenge to that finding.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
