Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Functional comparability is essential in transfer pricing analysis, and a government-owned enterprise with broader consultancy and project execution functions cannot be compared with a captive technical support provider. HSCC India Ltd. was excluded because it rendered comprehensive health-sector consultancy, served government ministries and agencies, and enjoyed advantages flowing from its governmental character; the absence of a subsidy did not make it comparable. Mitcon Consultancy and Engineering Services Ltd. was also excluded because it had diversified operations across multiple sectors and lacked reliable segmental revenue data in its signed accounts, making a valid comparison impossible. The assessee's appeal was allowed and the transfer pricing exercise was to proceed after excluding both entities.
Functional comparability is essential in transfer pricing analysis, and a government-owned enterprise with broader consultancy and project execution functions cannot be compared with a captive technical support provider. HSCC India Ltd. was excluded because it rendered comprehensive health-sector consultancy, served government ministries and agencies, and enjoyed advantages flowing from its governmental character; the absence of a subsidy did not make it comparable. Mitcon Consultancy and Engineering Services Ltd. was also excluded because it had diversified operations across multiple sectors and lacked reliable segmental revenue data in its signed accounts, making a valid comparison impossible. The assessee's appeal was allowed and the transfer pricing exercise was to proceed after excluding both entities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.