https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331177 The Bombay High Court dealt with transfer pricing on imports of pigments and consultancy/technical know-how fees, holding that no adjustment was warranted because the Tribunal's arm's length findings were supported by the record and the prescribed Section 92C methods had not been applied to benchmark the consultancy consideration. It also held that reversal of revaluation loss credited in the profit and loss account was not a receipt covered by Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, so the deduction could not be curtailed on that basis. Concurrent deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80IB were likewise held permissible under binding precedent, and the Revenue's challenge failed on all issues. en-us Mon, 08 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Sep 2025 12:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331177 The Bombay High Court dealt with transfer pricing on imports of pigments and consultancy/technical know-how fees, holding that no adjustment was warranted because the Tribunal's arm's length findings were supported by the record and the prescribed Section 92C methods had not been applied to benchmark the consultancy consideration. It also held that reversal of revaluation loss credited in the profit and loss account was not a receipt covered by Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, so the deduction could not be curtailed on that basis. Concurrent deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80IB were likewise held permissible under binding precedent, and the Revenue's challenge failed on all issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331177