<?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>2024 (8) TMI 685 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756981</link>
    <description>Excessive related party transactions rendered two proposed comparables functionally unreliable for transfer pricing. Since their annual reports showed 99% and 100% revenue from inter-company transactions, they were held non-comparable and directed to be excluded, with the arm&#039;s length price to be recomputed on the remaining set. Disallowance of support services cost by altering the allocation key from headcount to salary ratio was held impermissible because the headcount-based key had been consistently accepted and judicially affirmed as appropriate; the adjustment was set aside. Depreciation on identified intangibles (customer contracts and assembled workforce) was allowed at 25% as capital expenditure, and the AO was directed to grant depreciation accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 12:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 685 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756981</link>
      <description>Excessive related party transactions rendered two proposed comparables functionally unreliable for transfer pricing. Since their annual reports showed 99% and 100% revenue from inter-company transactions, they were held non-comparable and directed to be excluded, with the arm&#039;s length price to be recomputed on the remaining set. Disallowance of support services cost by altering the allocation key from headcount to salary ratio was held impermissible because the headcount-based key had been consistently accepted and judicially affirmed as appropriate; the adjustment was set aside. Depreciation on identified intangibles (customer contracts and assembled workforce) was allowed at 25% as capital expenditure, and the AO was directed to grant depreciation accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>