<?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>2026 (1) TMI 12 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784256</link>
    <description>Disallowance of interest was challenged on the ground that short-term borrowings were allegedly used for fixed assets. Relying on the audit report showing diversion of short-term loans to long-term investment and noting that the projects were put to use in July 2004 with interest capitalised for only four months, and that capital work-in-progress was undisputed, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s application of the interest rate for four months on the relevant funds; the Revenue&#039;s ground was rejected. On TP for sugar exports, the ITAT affirmed conversion of CIF to FOB and the CIT(A)&#039;s direction to compute ALP using the average of NYBOT and Kingsman prices (with the ±5% proviso to s.92C(2)); the Revenue&#039;s ground failed. On TP for ferrous exports, the ITAT upheld rejection of IBIS quotes and adoption of two comparable contracts as CUP, sustaining restricted adjustment without ±5% benefit; the Revenue&#039;s ground was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:17:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 12 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784256</link>
      <description>Disallowance of interest was challenged on the ground that short-term borrowings were allegedly used for fixed assets. Relying on the audit report showing diversion of short-term loans to long-term investment and noting that the projects were put to use in July 2004 with interest capitalised for only four months, and that capital work-in-progress was undisputed, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s application of the interest rate for four months on the relevant funds; the Revenue&#039;s ground was rejected. On TP for sugar exports, the ITAT affirmed conversion of CIF to FOB and the CIT(A)&#039;s direction to compute ALP using the average of NYBOT and Kingsman prices (with the ±5% proviso to s.92C(2)); the Revenue&#039;s ground failed. On TP for ferrous exports, the ITAT upheld rejection of IBIS quotes and adoption of two comparable contracts as CUP, sustaining restricted adjustment without ±5% benefit; the Revenue&#039;s ground was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>