<?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 (10) TMI 426 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759827</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC upheld ITAT&#039;s decision on transfer pricing adjustments for pharmaceutical transactions. For Paclitaxel and Disodium Pamidronate sales, the court accepted TNMM over CUP method, noting TPO failed to consider Rule 10B(2) factors and relied on different market prices. Net margins from these sales were higher at 14.10% versus 10.90% for other sales. For Methylene Chloride Soluble purchase from associated enterprise, despite TPO&#039;s Rs. 32 per kg determination using CUP method, the assessee&#039;s cost certificate showing Rs. 4648 per kg was accepted by CIT(A). The appellant failed to challenge the cost certificate&#039;s veracity before ITAT. HC found no substantial question of law arose from these factual determinations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 08:20:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 426 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759827</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC upheld ITAT&#039;s decision on transfer pricing adjustments for pharmaceutical transactions. For Paclitaxel and Disodium Pamidronate sales, the court accepted TNMM over CUP method, noting TPO failed to consider Rule 10B(2) factors and relied on different market prices. Net margins from these sales were higher at 14.10% versus 10.90% for other sales. For Methylene Chloride Soluble purchase from associated enterprise, despite TPO&#039;s Rs. 32 per kg determination using CUP method, the assessee&#039;s cost certificate showing Rs. 4648 per kg was accepted by CIT(A). The appellant failed to challenge the cost certificate&#039;s veracity before ITAT. HC found no substantial question of law arose from these factual determinations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>