<?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>2016 (9) TMI 196 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331935</link>
    <description>Transfer pricing comparables were not interfered with because the issue was already covered by the Court&#039;s earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case. The proposed adjustment for interest on receivables also failed because the Tribunal found, on facts, that the assessee was debt-free and no receivables-based interest issue arose. In both respects, the Revenue&#039;s challenge did not raise any substantial question of law, so the Tribunal&#039;s order remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2016 22:43:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 196 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331935</link>
      <description>Transfer pricing comparables were not interfered with because the issue was already covered by the Court&#039;s earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case. The proposed adjustment for interest on receivables also failed because the Tribunal found, on facts, that the assessee was debt-free and no receivables-based interest issue arose. In both respects, the Revenue&#039;s challenge did not raise any substantial question of law, so the Tribunal&#039;s order remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>