Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
In a transfer pricing dispute, the Tribunal held that Onward Technologies Ltd. remained a valid comparable for benchmarking the engineering, technical and inspection services segment because the TPO/AO had accepted its segmental results and the CIT(A) had also upheld that position. The Revenue's attempt to seek exclusion of the company as functionally not comparable was rejected as misconceived, since the objection was raised for the first time before the Tribunal after acceptance at the earlier stages. The additional grounds were therefore dismissed, and the Revenue's appeal failed.
In a transfer pricing dispute, the Tribunal held that Onward Technologies Ltd. remained a valid comparable for benchmarking the engineering, technical and inspection services segment because the TPO/AO had accepted its segmental results and the CIT(A) had also upheld that position. The Revenue's attempt to seek exclusion of the company as functionally not comparable was rejected as misconceived, since the objection was raised for the first time before the Tribunal after acceptance at the earlier stages. The additional grounds were therefore dismissed, and the Revenue's appeal failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.