<?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 (11) TMI 435 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370092</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the inclusion of certain comparables like Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd and STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd, while directing the exclusion of Kirloskar Consultants Ltd. It also mandated further verification for companies like Alphageo (India) Ltd and Semac Ltd. The Tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to disclose the computation of revised adjustments for foreign exchange fluctuations as directed by the DRP.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2018 19:03:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 435 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370092</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the inclusion of certain comparables like Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd and STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd, while directing the exclusion of Kirloskar Consultants Ltd. It also mandated further verification for companies like Alphageo (India) Ltd and Semac Ltd. The Tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to disclose the computation of revised adjustments for foreign exchange fluctuations as directed by the DRP.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>