<?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 1769 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278904</link>
    <description>Appeals were admitted and two substantial questions of law were framed on the choice of the most appropriate transfer pricing method and on whether the receipt was capital in nature. The Registry was directed to communicate the order and papers to the Tribunal, and the matters were ordered to be heard together with a connected income tax appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2019 14:02:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=559698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1769 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278904</link>
      <description>Appeals were admitted and two substantial questions of law were framed on the choice of the most appropriate transfer pricing method and on whether the receipt was capital in nature. The Registry was directed to communicate the order and papers to the Tribunal, and the matters were ordered to be heard together with a connected income tax appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>