<?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>2013 (11) TMI 224 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239047</link>
    <description>The Tribunal directed the A.O. to recompute the TP adjustment by adopting the cost-plus ratio of 15.80% of IDC (India) Limited as against 12.6% shown by the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the assessee&#039;s claim for risk adjustment and the benefit of +/-5% adjustment under the proviso to section 92C(2). The appeal was partly allowed, focusing on the accurate determination of the ALP based on the single comparable accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 224 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239047</link>
      <description>The Tribunal directed the A.O. to recompute the TP adjustment by adopting the cost-plus ratio of 15.80% of IDC (India) Limited as against 12.6% shown by the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the assessee&#039;s claim for risk adjustment and the benefit of +/-5% adjustment under the proviso to section 92C(2). The appeal was partly allowed, focusing on the accurate determination of the ALP based on the single comparable accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>