Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Transfer pricing adjustment arising from royalty payments requires benchmarking by the most appropriate traditional transaction method; where exact identical comparables exist the CUP method should be applied, but selected comparables must be functionally comparable and not mere local manufacturers or brand developers. The impugned comparables were held inappropriate and the matter is remitted to AO/TPO to re-benchmark afresh after affording the assessee hearing and considering the submitted TPAR; if no exact comparables receiving bundled services are found, benchmarking should proceed under TNMM using proper comparables.
Transfer pricing adjustment arising from royalty payments requires benchmarking by the most appropriate traditional transaction method; where exact identical comparables exist the CUP method should be applied, but selected comparables must be functionally comparable and not mere local manufacturers or brand developers. The impugned comparables were held inappropriate and the matter is remitted to AO/TPO to re-benchmark afresh after affording the assessee hearing and considering the submitted TPAR; if no exact comparables receiving bundled services are found, benchmarking should proceed under TNMM using proper comparables.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.