<?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>2012 (4) TMI 356 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212685</link>
    <description>The revenue&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the assessee&#039;s appeal was dismissed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the AO to make adjustments for credit terms and determine the adjusted Arm&#039;s Length Price (ALP) correctly. The Tribunal found that the 5% deduction under section 92C was not applicable as only one price was determined, rejecting other deductions claimed by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 10:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 356 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212685</link>
      <description>The revenue&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the assessee&#039;s appeal was dismissed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the AO to make adjustments for credit terms and determine the adjusted Arm&#039;s Length Price (ALP) correctly. The Tribunal found that the 5% deduction under section 92C was not applicable as only one price was determined, rejecting other deductions claimed by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>