https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451170 The court granted the application for condonation of an 86-day delay in filing the appeal. In reviewing the ITAT's decision under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, the court identified inconsistencies in the ITAT's original order regarding the comparability of Persistent Systems Ltd. and Sasken Communication Technology Ltd. Consequently, the ITAT was directed to recall and rectify its order. The issue concerning Persistent Systems Ltd. remains open, while the matter involving Sasken was remitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, concluding it did not present any substantial question of law. en-us Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451170 The court granted the application for condonation of an 86-day delay in filing the appeal. In reviewing the ITAT's decision under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, the court identified inconsistencies in the ITAT's original order regarding the comparability of Persistent Systems Ltd. and Sasken Communication Technology Ltd. Consequently, the ITAT was directed to recall and rectify its order. The issue concerning Persistent Systems Ltd. remains open, while the matter involving Sasken was remitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, concluding it did not present any substantial question of law. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451170