https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275077 The appeal was partly allowed, with various issues remanded back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) or Assessing Officer (AO) for re-evaluation based on the Tribunal's directions. The Tribunal stressed consistency with prior decisions and adherence to scientific and accounting standards in its judgment. Key outcomes included the allowance of the provision for warranty as a business expenditure, the treatment of marketing expenses as revenue deductions, and the rejection of enhancing the value of closing stock by treating certain assets as capital assets. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 07:39:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275077 The appeal was partly allowed, with various issues remanded back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) or Assessing Officer (AO) for re-evaluation based on the Tribunal's directions. The Tribunal stressed consistency with prior decisions and adherence to scientific and accounting standards in its judgment. Key outcomes included the allowance of the provision for warranty as a business expenditure, the treatment of marketing expenses as revenue deductions, and the rejection of enhancing the value of closing stock by treating certain assets as capital assets. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275077