<?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>2017 (7) TMI 996 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345884</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, directing the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to reconsider the selection of comparables and make necessary adjustments for differences in functions, assets, and risks. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to statutory requirements under Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules and rejected the argument for consistency based on previous years&#039; mistakes. The appeals were remitted back to the TPO for compliance with the Tribunal&#039;s directions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2017 07:15:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 996 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345884</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, directing the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to reconsider the selection of comparables and make necessary adjustments for differences in functions, assets, and risks. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to statutory requirements under Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules and rejected the argument for consistency based on previous years&#039; mistakes. The appeals were remitted back to the TPO for compliance with the Tribunal&#039;s directions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>