<?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>2020 (10) TMI 1210 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400236</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the reference to the Transfer Price Officer (TPO) dated 19.12.2018, finding that the proper procedure was followed in obtaining approval for the reference. It dismissed the writ petitions, stating there was no issue with the proceedings for assessment finalized thereafter, emphasizing that the petitioner&#039;s argument regarding the reason for selection of scrutiny being merely a numerical reconciliation was oversimplified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:43:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 1210 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400236</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the reference to the Transfer Price Officer (TPO) dated 19.12.2018, finding that the proper procedure was followed in obtaining approval for the reference. It dismissed the writ petitions, stating there was no issue with the proceedings for assessment finalized thereafter, emphasizing that the petitioner&#039;s argument regarding the reason for selection of scrutiny being merely a numerical reconciliation was oversimplified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>