<?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 (10) TMI 1167 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780371</link>
    <description>ITAT&#039;s acceptance of the assessee&#039;s eight comparables for benchmarking royalty payments (same industry and geography) and direction to include additional valid comparables was noted, but the SC dismissed the Special Leave Petition for an unexplained 454-day delay in filing. The petition was therefore rejected on grounds of delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:22:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 1167 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780371</link>
      <description>ITAT&#039;s acceptance of the assessee&#039;s eight comparables for benchmarking royalty payments (same industry and geography) and direction to include additional valid comparables was noted, but the SC dismissed the Special Leave Petition for an unexplained 454-day delay in filing. The petition was therefore rejected on grounds of delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>