<?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 (8) TMI 1708 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366236</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of additions made by the ACIT. It found errors in confirming transfer pricing adjustments, determining the AE relationship, considering the transaction as international, and computing ALP using the CUP method. The ITAT emphasized the CIT(A) lacks jurisdiction to substitute its satisfaction for the ACIT&#039;s regarding international transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:28:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1708 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366236</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of additions made by the ACIT. It found errors in confirming transfer pricing adjustments, determining the AE relationship, considering the transaction as international, and computing ALP using the CUP method. The ITAT emphasized the CIT(A) lacks jurisdiction to substitute its satisfaction for the ACIT&#039;s regarding international transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>