Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
The ITAT upheld deletion of transfer pricing adjustments on captive power supplied to eligible manufacturing units for section 80-IA purposes, applying the Supreme Court principle that the relevant market value is the rate charged by the State Electricity Board or distribution company to industrial consumers, not the regulated or contracted surplus-power rate. It accepted the annual landed cost paid by the manufacturing units as the proper benchmark and rejected the Revenue's challenge. The Tribunal also sustained allocation of common head office expenses on the fixed-asset ratio, holding that the Revenue had followed the same method in earlier years and no change in facts or law justified a profitability-based allocation. All four Revenue appeals were dismissed.
The ITAT upheld deletion of transfer pricing adjustments on captive power supplied to eligible manufacturing units for section 80-IA purposes, applying the Supreme Court principle that the relevant market value is the rate charged by the State Electricity Board or distribution company to industrial consumers, not the regulated or contracted surplus-power rate. It accepted the annual landed cost paid by the manufacturing units as the proper benchmark and rejected the Revenue's challenge. The Tribunal also sustained allocation of common head office expenses on the fixed-asset ratio, holding that the Revenue had followed the same method in earlier years and no change in facts or law justified a profitability-based allocation. All four Revenue appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.