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...
Assessee's claim for deduction under 80-IC was challenged on grounds that profits were overstated in the eligible unit while suppressed in the non-eligible unit. The tribunal rejected explanations based on excise duty and lower repair-and-maintenance, noting excise duty effects are offset by CENVAT credit and both units share management and similar input procurement and product quality; it accepted that lower R&M in the new unit is plausible but insufficient to explain the disparity. Tribunal found some profit suppression in the non-eligible unit, directed AO to apply a 5.83% net profit rate (average of relevant years) to recompute the 80-IC deduction and disallowed the remainder; appeal partly allowed.
Assessee's claim for deduction under 80-IC was challenged on grounds that profits were overstated in the eligible unit while suppressed in the non-eligible unit. The tribunal rejected explanations based on excise duty and lower repair-and-maintenance, noting excise duty effects are offset by CENVAT credit and both units share management and similar input procurement and product quality; it accepted that lower R&M in the new unit is plausible but insufficient to explain the disparity. Tribunal found some profit suppression in the non-eligible unit, directed AO to apply a 5.83% net profit rate (average of relevant years) to recompute the 80-IC deduction and disallowed the remainder; appeal partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
