Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
The High Court held that the Bright Line Test could not be adopted for transfer pricing because it is not provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Rules and is alien to the statutory scheme; the proposed question was rejected. It also declined to entertain the royalty adjustment questions, noting that the need for any transfer pricing adjustment, the computation method, and the arm's length price had already been decided in the assessee's own cases, with no contrary Supreme Court ruling shown. The exclusion of Febulka Advertising Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable was treated as a factual finding based on its different business and incomplete public data, beyond interference under section 260A. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Bright Line Test could not be adopted for transfer pricing because it is not provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Rules and is alien to the statutory scheme; the proposed question was rejected. It also declined to entertain the royalty adjustment questions, noting that the need for any transfer pricing adjustment, the computation method, and the arm's length price had already been decided in the assessee's own cases, with no contrary Supreme Court ruling shown. The exclusion of Febulka Advertising Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable was treated as a factual finding based on its different business and incomplete public data, beyond interference under section 260A. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
