<?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>2015 (11) TMI 269 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267460</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to reevaluate the comparison method and consider the interest benefit enjoyed by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the correct application of the second proviso to Sec. 92C(2) for determining the arm&#039;s length price and allowed the adjustment of interest from the purchase price, resulting in all grounds raised in the appeal being allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2015 22:05:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 269 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267460</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to reevaluate the comparison method and consider the interest benefit enjoyed by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the correct application of the second proviso to Sec. 92C(2) for determining the arm&#039;s length price and allowed the adjustment of interest from the purchase price, resulting in all grounds raised in the appeal being allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>