<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (12) TMI 516 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401717</link>
    <description>A share transfer without consideration was not accepted as a valid gift because the surrounding restructuring, board resolution and contemporaneous conduct showed it was not a genuinely voluntary and gratuitous transfer with the required acceptance; the exemption for gifts therefore did not apply and capital gains tax was attracted. The transfer pricing additions on trademark licence fee and corporate and bank guarantees were upheld because the assessee did not establish ownership of the mark and intra-group guarantees were treated as international transactions capable of arm&#039;s length adjustment. The 10% risk adjustment linked to the private equity investment was rejected as unsupported by the factual record and the investment price was treated as the best market indicator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 516 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401717</link>
      <description>A share transfer without consideration was not accepted as a valid gift because the surrounding restructuring, board resolution and contemporaneous conduct showed it was not a genuinely voluntary and gratuitous transfer with the required acceptance; the exemption for gifts therefore did not apply and capital gains tax was attracted. The transfer pricing additions on trademark licence fee and corporate and bank guarantees were upheld because the assessee did not establish ownership of the mark and intra-group guarantees were treated as international transactions capable of arm&#039;s length adjustment. The 10% risk adjustment linked to the private equity investment was rejected as unsupported by the factual record and the investment price was treated as the best market indicator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>