<?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 (11) TMI 1185 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446294</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi ruled on transfer pricing adjustments for an automotive component manufacturer providing software development and business support services. The tribunal excluded multiple comparables including E-Infochips, Infosys, Thirdware Solutions, Persistent Systems, E-Zest, Tata Elxsi, Alphageo India, Mitcon Consultancy, HCCA Business, and Cyber Media Online due to functional incomparability, lack of segmental data, or engagement in high-end services versus the assessee&#039;s low-risk captive services. The tribunal deleted TPO&#039;s benchmarking of fixed asset imports as no prescribed method under section 92C was followed. Regarding delayed receivables, the matter was restored to AO/TPO for fresh adjudication after admitting additional evidence. Appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2024 16:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=733373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 1185 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446294</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi ruled on transfer pricing adjustments for an automotive component manufacturer providing software development and business support services. The tribunal excluded multiple comparables including E-Infochips, Infosys, Thirdware Solutions, Persistent Systems, E-Zest, Tata Elxsi, Alphageo India, Mitcon Consultancy, HCCA Business, and Cyber Media Online due to functional incomparability, lack of segmental data, or engagement in high-end services versus the assessee&#039;s low-risk captive services. The tribunal deleted TPO&#039;s benchmarking of fixed asset imports as no prescribed method under section 92C was followed. Regarding delayed receivables, the matter was restored to AO/TPO for fresh adjudication after admitting additional evidence. Appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>