<?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 (12) TMI 936 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336291</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal by remanding issues regarding disallowances of travelling and conveyance expenses, freight and forwarding charges, and miscellaneous expenditure back to the AO for further review. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the adjustment towards royalty payment, determining that the royalty rates paid were at arm&#039;s length. The order was issued on 10/08/2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:28:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 936 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336291</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal by remanding issues regarding disallowances of travelling and conveyance expenses, freight and forwarding charges, and miscellaneous expenditure back to the AO for further review. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the adjustment towards royalty payment, determining that the royalty rates paid were at arm&#039;s length. The order was issued on 10/08/2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>