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...
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the disallowance arose from a deduction claim under section 80IB(10) on which courts had taken divergent views. The Tribunal treated the issue as debatable, noted that the controversy was pending before the Supreme Court, and applied Reliance Petroproducts to hold that a merely unsustainable claim does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. On that basis, the statutory conditions for penalty were not met and the penalty was deleted.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the disallowance arose from a deduction claim under section 80IB(10) on which courts had taken divergent views. The Tribunal treated the issue as debatable, noted that the controversy was pending before the Supreme Court, and applied Reliance Petroproducts to hold that a merely unsustainable claim does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. On that basis, the statutory conditions for penalty were not met and the penalty was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
