<?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>2024 (8) TMI 1671 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466003</link>
    <description>A transfer pricing adjustment had already examined the relevant transactions at arm&#039;s length and captured the income arising from them, leaving no further profit to be attributed to the alleged permanent establishment. On that undisputed factual basis, the Court held that the controversy did not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference. The appeal therefore failed on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2026 15:44:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=879828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1671 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466003</link>
      <description>A transfer pricing adjustment had already examined the relevant transactions at arm&#039;s length and captured the income arising from them, leaving no further profit to be attributed to the alleged permanent establishment. On that undisputed factual basis, the Court held that the controversy did not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference. The appeal therefore failed on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>