Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
