<?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>HC held the share transfer to a wholly owned subsidiary was not a valid gift, rendering Section 47(iii) inapplicable and rejecting the assessee&#039;s contention that no capital gains arose. The court upheld the TPO&#039;s factual findings of a circular, tax-avoidance transaction and restored transfer-pricing adjustments: trademark fee ALP determined nil and guarantee-commission additions reinstated. The DRP and Tribunal were faulted for failing to rehear or properly examine TPO findings; the DRP&#039;s 10% risk allowance for the PE fund was set aside. The TPO&#039;s CUP-based valuation (Rs. 885,13,80,000) was restored and the AO was directed to give effect to the TPO&#039;s order.</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>HC held the share transfer to a wholly owned subsidiary was not a valid gift, rendering Section 47(iii) inapplicable and rejecting the assessee&#039;s contention that no capital gains arose. The court upheld the TPO&#039;s factual findings of a circular, tax-avoidance transaction and restored transfer-pricing adjustments: trademark fee ALP determined nil and guarantee-commission additions reinstated. The DRP and Tribunal were faulted for failing to rehear or properly examine TPO findings; the DRP&#039;s 10% risk allowance for the PE fund was set aside. The TPO&#039;s CUP-based valuation (Rs. 885,13,80,000) was restored and the AO was directed to give effect to the TPO&#039;s order.</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>