<?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>2023 (6) TMI 260 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438686</link>
    <description>Explanation 2(c) to section 263 applies where an assessment order is not made in accordance with a Board instruction under section 119. CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016 required a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer in cases selected on transfer pricing risk parameters, subject to prescribed approval. Because the assessing officer did not make the mandatory reference and the assessment order did not record any non-examination of the transfer pricing issue under the Instruction, the order was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The revision order was upheld, and further objections were left to be raised in the set-aside proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2023 08:50:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=715757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 260 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438686</link>
      <description>Explanation 2(c) to section 263 applies where an assessment order is not made in accordance with a Board instruction under section 119. CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016 required a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer in cases selected on transfer pricing risk parameters, subject to prescribed approval. Because the assessing officer did not make the mandatory reference and the assessment order did not record any non-examination of the transfer pricing issue under the Instruction, the order was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The revision order was upheld, and further objections were left to be raised in the set-aside proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>