<?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 1545 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371202</link>
    <description>The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remanded back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for further verification and consideration. The tribunal emphasized the need for proper justification and evidence in determining the arm&#039;s length price and the selection of comparables. The issue of the most appropriate method for benchmarking was left open for future adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:24:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1545 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371202</link>
      <description>The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remanded back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for further verification and consideration. The tribunal emphasized the need for proper justification and evidence in determining the arm&#039;s length price and the selection of comparables. The issue of the most appropriate method for benchmarking was left open for future adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>