<?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>2018 (12) TMI 2004 - ITAT BENGALURU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458750</link>
    <description>In transfer pricing comparability analysis, Megasoft Ltd. could be used as a comparable only after its segmental results were separately examined, because its overall results were not directly usable. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions applying the same approach and accepted the segmentation exercise for the software segment. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s objection was allowed and the comparability issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:06:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 2004 - ITAT BENGALURU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458750</link>
      <description>In transfer pricing comparability analysis, Megasoft Ltd. could be used as a comparable only after its segmental results were separately examined, because its overall results were not directly usable. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions applying the same approach and accepted the segmentation exercise for the software segment. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s objection was allowed and the comparability issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>