https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307565 Tribunal findings on comparable-company selection and transfer-pricing filters generally do not give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260-A unless ex facie perversity is shown, so mere disagreement with factual conclusions is insufficient. Compensation paid to exit a contract for proposed purchase of immovable property intended for business infrastructure was treated as capital expenditure, because it was connected with a capital asset or capital liability rather than ordinary business operations. On that basis, the payment was not deductible as revenue expenditure, and the assessee obtained no relief. en-us Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Apr 2023 21:57:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307565 Tribunal findings on comparable-company selection and transfer-pricing filters generally do not give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260-A unless ex facie perversity is shown, so mere disagreement with factual conclusions is insufficient. Compensation paid to exit a contract for proposed purchase of immovable property intended for business infrastructure was treated as capital expenditure, because it was connected with a capital asset or capital liability rather than ordinary business operations. On that basis, the payment was not deductible as revenue expenditure, and the assessee obtained no relief. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307565