<?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>2012 (8) TMI 1169 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284663</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the matter to be sent back to the DRP-II for reconsideration. The Tribunal found that the tax authorities had not properly considered the additional evidence application submitted by the assessee, in line with judicial precedents emphasizing the importance of allowing additional evidence for determining the arm&#039;s length price of international transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2019 13:03:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 1169 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284663</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the matter to be sent back to the DRP-II for reconsideration. The Tribunal found that the tax authorities had not properly considered the additional evidence application submitted by the assessee, in line with judicial precedents emphasizing the importance of allowing additional evidence for determining the arm&#039;s length price of international transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>