<?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>2016 (5) TMI 1491 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279244</link>
    <description>Transfer pricing comparables must be tested on functional comparability under the transactional net margin method, and selective acceptance or rejection of comparable companies without proper functional reasons is not sustainable. The Tribunal upheld the Dispute Resolution Panel&#039;s fresh comparables approach and accepted the assessee&#039;s objection to the transfer pricing adjustment for the assembly and delivery management support segment. It also held that a separate adjustment for bad debts and balance written back was unwarranted where only a small amount was written off and the balance had already been offered to tax, so the deletion of that addition was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2019 07:01:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=562131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1491 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279244</link>
      <description>Transfer pricing comparables must be tested on functional comparability under the transactional net margin method, and selective acceptance or rejection of comparable companies without proper functional reasons is not sustainable. The Tribunal upheld the Dispute Resolution Panel&#039;s fresh comparables approach and accepted the assessee&#039;s objection to the transfer pricing adjustment for the assembly and delivery management support segment. It also held that a separate adjustment for bad debts and balance written back was unwarranted where only a small amount was written off and the balance had already been offered to tax, so the deletion of that addition was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>