<?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>2019 (6) TMI 696 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381619</link>
    <description>The High Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s findings that the assessee&#039;s AMP expenses were adequately compensated by its associated enterprise, with no further adjustment needed. The High Court held that the AMP expenditure did not benefit the associated enterprise as the brand was not well-known in India. The revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, with no substantial question of law found. The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal and rendering the stay petition unnecessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 696 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381619</link>
      <description>The High Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s findings that the assessee&#039;s AMP expenses were adequately compensated by its associated enterprise, with no further adjustment needed. The High Court held that the AMP expenditure did not benefit the associated enterprise as the brand was not well-known in India. The revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, with no substantial question of law found. The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal and rendering the stay petition unnecessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>