Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
