Rule 44G(6) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section Rule 44G(6), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Mando Automotive India Pvt Ltd v ACIT
ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
Your MAP resolution settles the transactions with the treaty-country associated enterprise. Can the same treatment be claimed for your associated enterprises in other countries?
Not automatically, but the claim is arguable and the Tribunal will not shut it out. The Chennai Bench restored the adjustment on the transactions with the non-Korean associated enterprises to the Transfer Pricing Officer to examine whether they are similar in nature to those covered by the India-Korea MAP resolution, and, if they are found to be so, to consider giving them the same treatment as adopted in the MAP. The relief is a remand on a similarity test, not a direction to apply the agreed margin.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
