<?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 (10) TMI 831 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387347</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to accept the 1% guarantee fee charged by the assessee as being at arm&#039;s length, dismissing the revenue&#039;s challenge. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue&#039;s grounds regarding the benchmarking method for export transactions, noting that these grounds were not part of the CIT(A)&#039;s order. As a result, the appeal of the revenue was entirely dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:00:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (10) TMI 831 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387347</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to accept the 1% guarantee fee charged by the assessee as being at arm&#039;s length, dismissing the revenue&#039;s challenge. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue&#039;s grounds regarding the benchmarking method for export transactions, noting that these grounds were not part of the CIT(A)&#039;s order. As a result, the appeal of the revenue was entirely dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>