<?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>Order Challenged for Lack of Analysis on Royalty Valuation; Agreements Not Examined in Detail by Commissioner (Appeals).</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=28017</link>
    <description>Valuation - inclusion of royalty - Legality of Commissioner (Appeals) order - There was no discussions either on facts or on legal issues in his impugned order and also it had not examined in detail the agreements and amendment agreements but merely endorses the respondent&#039;s view without any discussion - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:37:54 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:37:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Order Challenged for Lack of Analysis on Royalty Valuation; Agreements Not Examined in Detail by Commissioner (Appeals).</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=28017</link>
      <description>Valuation - inclusion of royalty - Legality of Commissioner (Appeals) order - There was no discussions either on facts or on legal issues in his impugned order and also it had not examined in detail the agreements and amendment agreements but merely endorses the respondent&#039;s view without any discussion - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:37:54 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=28017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>