<?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 (12) TMI 708 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763128</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remanded the case to the DRP for further examination of the arm&#039;s length price (ALP) concerning the international transaction of purchasing capital goods. The appellant disputed this remand, asserting that the Transfer Pricing Report already contained necessary disclosures and that the matter was revenue neutral. Allegations of judicial discipline violations and the Tribunal&#039;s decision-making process were raised, with the appellant seeking a fresh consideration of the Tribunal&#039;s order. The appellant maintained that the purchase of capital goods was appropriately benchmarked, and there was no basis for additional TP adjustments or remanding the issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=782456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 708 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763128</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remanded the case to the DRP for further examination of the arm&#039;s length price (ALP) concerning the international transaction of purchasing capital goods. The appellant disputed this remand, asserting that the Transfer Pricing Report already contained necessary disclosures and that the matter was revenue neutral. Allegations of judicial discipline violations and the Tribunal&#039;s decision-making process were raised, with the appellant seeking a fresh consideration of the Tribunal&#039;s order. The appellant maintained that the purchase of capital goods was appropriately benchmarked, and there was no basis for additional TP adjustments or remanding the issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>