Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in assessing profits, the revenue could disregard the actual price of a bona fide transfer of stock-in-trade to a subsidiary and substitute market value merely because the transaction reduced tax liability.
Analysis: The transfer between the assessee and its subsidiary was accepted as a bona fide transaction between two distinct legal entities, and no secret profit or sham was found. Tax can be levied only on real income actually earned; it cannot be imposed on notional or fictional income merely because the assessee could have arranged its affairs differently. An assessee is entitled to so arrange commercial affairs as to minimise tax burden, and a genuine transfer at a concessional price does not permit the taxing authority to substitute market value in the absence of material showing that real profits were earned. The authorities relied on by the revenue concerned self-consumption or transfer for own use and did not govern a transfer between separate traders at an actual price.
Conclusion: The revenue could not assess the difference between market value and actual transfer price as profit, and the answer to the surviving question was against the revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a sham transaction or material showing real profit, income-tax authorities cannot replace the actual consideration of a bona fide commercial transfer with a notional market value merely because the arrangement reduces tax liability.