<?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 (10) TMI 638 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122758</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), concluding that interest-free loans extended to associated enterprises were not at arm&#039;s length. The Tribunal also ruled that the 5% range benefit under section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act was not applicable. All three appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2023 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 638 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122758</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), concluding that interest-free loans extended to associated enterprises were not at arm&#039;s length. The Tribunal also ruled that the 5% range benefit under section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act was not applicable. All three appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>