Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
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 
