Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
In transfer pricing comparability, Excel Infoways Ltd. was excluded because Tribunal precedent noted low employee cost and fluctuating margins, and that exclusion was upheld. Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was directed to be included in the final comparable set because it had been accepted in the assessee's own earlier year and no material change in functional profile was shown for the relevant year. The Tribunal also held that working capital adjustment must be allowed while giving effect to the order, as differences affecting comparability must be adjusted in the profit margin of independent comparables. Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed.
In transfer pricing comparability, Excel Infoways Ltd. was excluded because Tribunal precedent noted low employee cost and fluctuating margins, and that exclusion was upheld. Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was directed to be included in the final comparable set because it had been accepted in the assessee's own earlier year and no material change in functional profile was shown for the relevant year. The Tribunal also held that working capital adjustment must be allowed while giving effect to the order, as differences affecting comparability must be adjusted in the profit margin of independent comparables. Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.