<?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>2018 (7) TMI 484 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363176</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals challenging the exclusion of certain comparables in transfer pricing assessments. It directed the exclusion of specific companies based on functional dissimilarity and previous judicial decisions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistent application of parameters in transfer pricing assessments and clarified that mere dissatisfaction with Tribunal findings is not enough to invoke section 260A of the Income Tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 08:26:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 484 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363176</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals challenging the exclusion of certain comparables in transfer pricing assessments. It directed the exclusion of specific companies based on functional dissimilarity and previous judicial decisions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistent application of parameters in transfer pricing assessments and clarified that mere dissatisfaction with Tribunal findings is not enough to invoke section 260A of the Income Tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363176</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>