https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378414 A genuine subscription to redeemable preference shares of an associated enterprise could not be recharacterised as an interest-free loan for transfer pricing purposes absent material showing sham or exceptional circumstances, so notional interest adjustment was not sustainable. Advances to related concerns were supported by sufficient interest-free funds, and the mixed-funds principle meant disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was not justified. Corporate guarantee commission could not be benchmarked against bank guarantees because the two instruments differ in nature, risk and commercial setting, so the higher transfer pricing adjustment was rejected. The Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378414 A genuine subscription to redeemable preference shares of an associated enterprise could not be recharacterised as an interest-free loan for transfer pricing purposes absent material showing sham or exceptional circumstances, so notional interest adjustment was not sustainable. Advances to related concerns were supported by sufficient interest-free funds, and the mixed-funds principle meant disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was not justified. Corporate guarantee commission could not be benchmarked against bank guarantees because the two instruments differ in nature, risk and commercial setting, so the higher transfer pricing adjustment was rejected. The Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378414