Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
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...
Sections 92 to 92F operate as a self-contained code for arm's length price determination, so RBI or Government approvals for royalty rates do not create any presumption for income-tax purposes. The Court accepted that the assessee's comparability analysis was inadequate and that arm's length pricing required a detailed functional and economic examination, not a bare comparison of royalty percentages. The Tribunal's fixation of royalty at 1% of export sales was treated as a factual finding, with no perversity shown, and the disallowance of excess royalty was upheld. The assessee's acceptance of 1% in later assessment years was only an additional circumstance, not the principal basis of decision, and no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A.
Sections 92 to 92F operate as a self-contained code for arm's length price determination, so RBI or Government approvals for royalty rates do not create any presumption for income-tax purposes. The Court accepted that the assessee's comparability analysis was inadequate and that arm's length pricing required a detailed functional and economic examination, not a bare comparison of royalty percentages. The Tribunal's fixation of royalty at 1% of export sales was treated as a factual finding, with no perversity shown, and the disallowance of excess royalty was upheld. The assessee's acceptance of 1% in later assessment years was only an additional circumstance, not the principal basis of decision, and no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
