<?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>2009 (2) TMI 192 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34864</link>
    <description>Related-person valuation under Section 4 requires proof that the buyer and seller each have a direct or indirect interest in the other&#039;s business; a mere holding-subsidiary relationship is insufficient without mutuality of interest. Fully convertible debentures were treated as a commercial investment transaction, not financial accommodation or an interest-free loan, and no other material showed related-person status. In the absence of mutuality, the actual transaction value could not be rejected in favour of higher comparable prices from other manufacturers, and the higher valuation was unsupported on the record. As the demand failed, the consequential penalty could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 192 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34864</link>
      <description>Related-person valuation under Section 4 requires proof that the buyer and seller each have a direct or indirect interest in the other&#039;s business; a mere holding-subsidiary relationship is insufficient without mutuality of interest. Fully convertible debentures were treated as a commercial investment transaction, not financial accommodation or an interest-free loan, and no other material showed related-person status. In the absence of mutuality, the actual transaction value could not be rejected in favour of higher comparable prices from other manufacturers, and the higher valuation was unsupported on the record. As the demand failed, the consequential penalty could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>