<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Arm&#039;s length royalty pricing upheld where regulatory approval did not bind transfer pricing analysis.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98657</link>
    <description>Sections 92 to 92F operate as a self-contained code for arm&#039;s length price determination, so RBI or Government approvals for royalty rates do not create any presumption for income-tax purposes. The Court accepted that the assessee&#039;s comparability analysis was inadequate and that arm&#039;s length pricing required a detailed functional and economic examination, not a bare comparison of royalty percentages. The Tribunal&#039;s fixation of royalty at 1% of export sales was treated as a factual finding, with no perversity shown, and the disallowance of excess royalty was upheld. The assessee&#039;s acceptance of 1% in later assessment years was only an additional circumstance, not the principal basis of decision, and no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:44 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Arm&#039;s length royalty pricing upheld where regulatory approval did not bind transfer pricing analysis.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98657</link>
      <description>Sections 92 to 92F operate as a self-contained code for arm&#039;s length price determination, so RBI or Government approvals for royalty rates do not create any presumption for income-tax purposes. The Court accepted that the assessee&#039;s comparability analysis was inadequate and that arm&#039;s length pricing required a detailed functional and economic examination, not a bare comparison of royalty percentages. The Tribunal&#039;s fixation of royalty at 1% of export sales was treated as a factual finding, with no perversity shown, and the disallowance of excess royalty was upheld. The assessee&#039;s acceptance of 1% in later assessment years was only an additional circumstance, not the principal basis of decision, and no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:44 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>