<?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>High Court Deletes Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in Transfer Pricing Case Due to Debatable Base Erosion Theory Issue.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=72804</link>
    <description>Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Transfer pricing adjustment - Debatable issue - Base Erosion Theory - Reading a particular paragraph of the observations of the AO’s order reproduced by the CIT(A) itself would indicate that there were two views possible and that the issue was debatable. - Penalty was rightly deleted - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:51:02 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:51:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730708" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Deletes Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in Transfer Pricing Case Due to Debatable Base Erosion Theory Issue.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=72804</link>
      <description>Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Transfer pricing adjustment - Debatable issue - Base Erosion Theory - Reading a particular paragraph of the observations of the AO’s order reproduced by the CIT(A) itself would indicate that there were two views possible and that the issue was debatable. - Penalty was rightly deleted - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:51:02 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=72804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>