https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273702 The case involved multiple issues including the treatment of lending transactions under Section 92B, benchmarking interest rates, adjustment of interest rates on interest-free loans, treatment of pro rata premium on FCCB redemption, tax deduction on dealer's incentive, disallowance of provision for medical benefits, and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal's decisions were challenged on various grounds, such as the use of LIBOR rate for benchmarking, treatment of expenses as capital expenditure, and interpretation of tax deduction provisions. The judgment highlighted the complexity of tax law interpretations and challenges in income tax assessments for the relevant year. en-us Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:17:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273702 The case involved multiple issues including the treatment of lending transactions under Section 92B, benchmarking interest rates, adjustment of interest rates on interest-free loans, treatment of pro rata premium on FCCB redemption, tax deduction on dealer's incentive, disallowance of provision for medical benefits, and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal's decisions were challenged on various grounds, such as the use of LIBOR rate for benchmarking, treatment of expenses as capital expenditure, and interpretation of tax deduction provisions. The judgment highlighted the complexity of tax law interpretations and challenges in income tax assessments for the relevant year. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273702