Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
