Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
At the Section 26 prima facie stage, the Commission may close an information where the informant does not place complete and substantiating material. The Tribunal noted that general assertions on unilateral pricing, unfair tender terms, discounts, losses, price distortion and market harm were unsupported by actual data on cost sheets, margins, losses, market exit, price effects or share erosion, so the allegations did not cross the evidentiary threshold for investigation. It also accepted that, in a regulated alcohol market, pricing was linked to taxes, levies and State policy, and that alleged preferential treatment in tendering was not shown by comparative market data to have distorted competition. The closure under Section 26(2) was upheld.
At the Section 26 prima facie stage, the Commission may close an information where the informant does not place complete and substantiating material. The Tribunal noted that general assertions on unilateral pricing, unfair tender terms, discounts, losses, price distortion and market harm were unsupported by actual data on cost sheets, margins, losses, market exit, price effects or share erosion, so the allegations did not cross the evidentiary threshold for investigation. It also accepted that, in a regulated alcohol market, pricing was linked to taxes, levies and State policy, and that alleged preferential treatment in tendering was not shown by comparative market data to have distorted competition. The closure under Section 26(2) was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
