<?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 (5) TMI 1302 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771030</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi held that interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises constitutes an international transaction requiring transfer pricing adjustment. However, the TPO&#039;s adjustment was deleted as the assessee demonstrated superior operating profit margins (31.59%) compared to selected comparables (mean 14.30%) after working capital adjustments. Regarding Section 14A disallowance, the tribunal directed the AO to recompute using Rule 8D provisions, considering average investment values yielding exempt income. The court upheld CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance on guarantee commission payments, finding no principal-agent relationship existed between assessee and bank, thus Section 194H provisions were inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 May 2025 11:33:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1302 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771030</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi held that interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises constitutes an international transaction requiring transfer pricing adjustment. However, the TPO&#039;s adjustment was deleted as the assessee demonstrated superior operating profit margins (31.59%) compared to selected comparables (mean 14.30%) after working capital adjustments. Regarding Section 14A disallowance, the tribunal directed the AO to recompute using Rule 8D provisions, considering average investment values yielding exempt income. The court upheld CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance on guarantee commission payments, finding no principal-agent relationship existed between assessee and bank, thus Section 194H provisions were inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>