Search: transfer pricing

2 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 58clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. DETERGENTS INDIA LTD

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

58 in file No.45 and added that M/s. SWC were periodically conducting audit (M/s. SWC being the holding company) of the functioning of M/s. DIL, Kodur which was its subsidiary to control and monitor the activities of its subsidiaries. When enquired he stated that the processing charges paid by M/s. HLL to M/s. DIL is Rs.1,200 per MT upto

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

C.A. No.-006770-006770 - 2004Supreme Court20 Aug 2015

price would be left to the whims and fancies of the assessing authority. This argument was repelled by this Court after setting out Sections 2(g) and 2(ja), which define “sale” and “works contract”. The Court then went on to discuss Sections 9(2) and 13(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 9(2) of the Central