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...
Section 79 did not bar the set off of brought forward business losses where the persons beneficially holding more than 51% of the voting power continued to hold that voting power on the relevant date; on the uncontroverted facts, the disqualifying change in shareholding was absent and the Revenue's challenge failed. An appellate authority could also entertain a lawful additional depreciation claim raised through a revised computation, because the restriction in Goetze (India) Ltd. applies only to the Assessing Officer and does not limit appellate powers. The Tribunal upheld allowance of both claims and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Section 79 did not bar the set off of brought forward business losses where the persons beneficially holding more than 51% of the voting power continued to hold that voting power on the relevant date; on the uncontroverted facts, the disqualifying change in shareholding was absent and the Revenue's challenge failed. An appellate authority could also entertain a lawful additional depreciation claim raised through a revised computation, because the restriction in Goetze (India) Ltd. applies only to the Assessing Officer and does not limit appellate powers. The Tribunal upheld allowance of both claims and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
