Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
Prohibited importation of cosmetics without prior regulatory registration attracts seizure and confiscation; warehousing or re export claims do not cu...
Provisional release on security permitted where cash deposit plus bond secures differential duty; classification and treaty benefits referred for deci...
Customs Valuation Rule Sequence must be followed; single-comparator re-determination and penalties set aside without comparability or proof of mis-dec...
Transfer pricing comparables were tested on functional and...
Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocation.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Transfer pricing comparables were tested on functional and factual suitability: India Tourism Development Corporation Limited was remanded for fresh examination because the loss-maker label was based on a misquoted record and profit had been shown in a relevant year; the healthcare segment of Inhouse Production Ltd. was directed to be included because segmental comparability was established; and Elbit Diagnostics Limited remained excluded because its operational circumstances made it an unsuitable comparable despite the persistent-loss reasoning failing. The Tribunal also directed working capital adjustment in line with the DRP's binding direction, accepted the assessee's no-risk status on a cost-plus, direction-driven model, and rejected objections to use of current-year data and the standard plus/minus 5 percent tolerance benefit.
Transfer pricing comparables were tested on functional and factual suitability: India Tourism Development Corporation Limited was remanded for fresh examination because the loss-maker label was based on a misquoted record and profit had been shown in a relevant year; the healthcare segment of Inhouse Production Ltd. was directed to be included because segmental comparability was established; and Elbit Diagnostics Limited remained excluded because its operational circumstances made it an unsuitable comparable despite the persistent-loss reasoning failing. The Tribunal also directed working capital adjustment in line with the DRP's binding direction, accepted the assessee's no-risk status on a cost-plus, direction-driven model, and rejected objections to use of current-year data and the standard plus/minus 5 percent tolerance benefit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
