<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1718 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460911</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai upheld reopening of assessment based on survey proceedings, rejecting assessee&#039;s challenge. For TP adjustment on interest-free loan to Italian AE, tribunal held that commercial expediency is irrelevant and loan must be benchmarked at arm&#039;s length price under Section 92. Assessee&#039;s claim of strategic shareholder function failed as loan was written off as irrecoverable. However, tribunal accepted assessee&#039;s alternative submission to charge interest at LIBOR+200 bps instead of Indian bank lending rates, following jurisdictional HC precedents. Additional ground regarding adhoc computation was dismissed due to lack of benchmarking details from assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2025 14:25:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=802971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1718 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460911</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai upheld reopening of assessment based on survey proceedings, rejecting assessee&#039;s challenge. For TP adjustment on interest-free loan to Italian AE, tribunal held that commercial expediency is irrelevant and loan must be benchmarked at arm&#039;s length price under Section 92. Assessee&#039;s claim of strategic shareholder function failed as loan was written off as irrecoverable. However, tribunal accepted assessee&#039;s alternative submission to charge interest at LIBOR+200 bps instead of Indian bank lending rates, following jurisdictional HC precedents. Additional ground regarding adhoc computation was dismissed due to lack of benchmarking details from assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>