<?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>2021 (4) TMI 680 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406564</link>
    <description>Transfer pricing adjustment on interest receivables was found unsustainable because no interest was charged to AEs or non-AEs, comparable support for SBI short-term deposit rates was lacking, and the coordinate bench view for an earlier year supported consistency; the ALP adjustment was therefore deleted. Depreciation on the solar power plant was allowed because inspection, compliance steps, trial functioning and use during March 2014 showed the asset had been installed and put to use in the relevant year, despite pending final approval. Forward contract loss was accepted in principle but left for factual verification, while biomass plant cultivation expenses, lease expenses and depreciation were treated as allowable where approvals, records and project set-up materials supported business use.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:05:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 680 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406564</link>
      <description>Transfer pricing adjustment on interest receivables was found unsustainable because no interest was charged to AEs or non-AEs, comparable support for SBI short-term deposit rates was lacking, and the coordinate bench view for an earlier year supported consistency; the ALP adjustment was therefore deleted. Depreciation on the solar power plant was allowed because inspection, compliance steps, trial functioning and use during March 2014 showed the asset had been installed and put to use in the relevant year, despite pending final approval. Forward contract loss was accepted in principle but left for factual verification, while biomass plant cultivation expenses, lease expenses and depreciation were treated as allowable where approvals, records and project set-up materials supported business use.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>