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...
Indexation on a capital asset received in amalgamation was held to run from FY 2008-09 because the township had already been constructed and let out by the amalgamating company, with rental income taxed from that year; the tax-neutral transfer under the scheme did not shift the holding period to the later amalgamation order or occupancy certificate. The Tribunal also upheld the claimed short-term capital loss on sale of AIF units to a subsidiary, finding both acquisition and sale valuations followed the NAV method, the fall in value was explained by decline in underlying investments, and a related-party sale is not a colourable device without evidence of tax avoidance. Both revenue appeals were dismissed.
Indexation on a capital asset received in amalgamation was held to run from FY 2008-09 because the township had already been constructed and let out by the amalgamating company, with rental income taxed from that year; the tax-neutral transfer under the scheme did not shift the holding period to the later amalgamation order or occupancy certificate. The Tribunal also upheld the claimed short-term capital loss on sale of AIF units to a subsidiary, finding both acquisition and sale valuations followed the NAV method, the fall in value was explained by decline in underlying investments, and a related-party sale is not a colourable device without evidence of tax avoidance. Both revenue appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
