<?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 (9) TMI 1270 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759026</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi held that the assessee successfully established actual rendering of technical support services (TSS) and business support services (BSS) as per agreements, which were necessary for day-to-day business operations. The TPO erred in determining arm&#039;s length price as NIL for these services. The DRP failed to properly consider the assessee&#039;s objections and additional evidence as directed by the Appellate Tribunal in the first round. The TPO violated consistency principles by deviating from aggregation approach accepted in previous assessment years without providing detailed reasons. Regarding royalty transactions, the TPO incorrectly computed arm&#039;s length price without considering landed costs of imported components in comparables. The matter was remitted back for fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769811" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1270 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759026</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi held that the assessee successfully established actual rendering of technical support services (TSS) and business support services (BSS) as per agreements, which were necessary for day-to-day business operations. The TPO erred in determining arm&#039;s length price as NIL for these services. The DRP failed to properly consider the assessee&#039;s objections and additional evidence as directed by the Appellate Tribunal in the first round. The TPO violated consistency principles by deviating from aggregation approach accepted in previous assessment years without providing detailed reasons. Regarding royalty transactions, the TPO incorrectly computed arm&#039;s length price without considering landed costs of imported components in comparables. The matter was remitted back for fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>