<?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>2025 (3) TMI 308 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766923</link>
    <description>Transfer pricing benchmarking was held to be confined to associated enterprise or related party transactions, not the entire turnover. The Bombay HC noted that prior coordinate bench decisions had already settled this position against the Revenue, so the proposed substantial question of law did not survive for admission. On that basis, the proposed question was answered in favour of the assessee, and the appeal was not admitted and stood dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2025 07:35:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=804267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 308 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766923</link>
      <description>Transfer pricing benchmarking was held to be confined to associated enterprise or related party transactions, not the entire turnover. The Bombay HC noted that prior coordinate bench decisions had already settled this position against the Revenue, so the proposed substantial question of law did not survive for admission. On that basis, the proposed question was answered in favour of the assessee, and the appeal was not admitted and stood dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>