https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359174 The Bombay High Court noted that it could not issue directions in a pending second-round appeal because the matter had not yet resulted in a final Tribunal order and was not before it on appeal from an order under section 254, so section 260A jurisdiction was not available. It also recorded that subsequent legal developments could be considered by the Tribunal when deciding whether AMP expenditure constituted an international transaction and in determining arm's length price under Chapter X. The Tribunal was therefore left free to decide the second-round appeal afresh in light of later judicial decisions. en-us Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359174 The Bombay High Court noted that it could not issue directions in a pending second-round appeal because the matter had not yet resulted in a final Tribunal order and was not before it on appeal from an order under section 254, so section 260A jurisdiction was not available. It also recorded that subsequent legal developments could be considered by the Tribunal when deciding whether AMP expenditure constituted an international transaction and in determining arm's length price under Chapter X. The Tribunal was therefore left free to decide the second-round appeal afresh in light of later judicial decisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359174