Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
The dispute concerns whether a domestic divestment of a support...
International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enterprises not deemed international, appeal allowed
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The dispute concerns whether a domestic divestment of a support services business between two resident associated enterprises can be treated as an international transaction or a deemed international transaction under transfer pricing Chapter X. The tribunal reasoned that section 92B(2) requires a transaction with a person other than an associated enterprise, so a transaction between two AEs does not satisfy that statutory gateway; the respondent's reliance on substance over form and alleged prior non-resident influence was rejected as immaterial to the statutory prerequisite. Consequently, section 92B(2) did not apply and the transaction was not a deemed international transaction, allowing the appeal.
The dispute concerns whether a domestic divestment of a support services business between two resident associated enterprises can be treated as an international transaction or a deemed international transaction under transfer pricing Chapter X. The tribunal reasoned that section 92B(2) requires a transaction with a person other than an associated enterprise, so a transaction between two AEs does not satisfy that statutory gateway; the respondent's reliance on substance over form and alleged prior non-resident influence was rejected as immaterial to the statutory prerequisite. Consequently, section 92B(2) did not apply and the transaction was not a deemed international transaction, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
