<?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>2014 (11) TMI 431 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253114</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remitted the transfer pricing adjustment issue back to the Transfer Pricing Officer for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to assess whether the differences materially affected the pricing. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the depreciation rate for server UPS systems, granting a higher rate of 60% depreciation. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act were not extensively addressed in the provided text.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2014 15:00:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 431 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253114</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remitted the transfer pricing adjustment issue back to the Transfer Pricing Officer for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to assess whether the differences materially affected the pricing. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the depreciation rate for server UPS systems, granting a higher rate of 60% depreciation. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act were not extensively addressed in the provided text.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>