<?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>Transfer pricing comparability, working capital adjustment, and royalty benchmarking were addressed with TNMM and consistency principles.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97998</link>
    <description>In transfer pricing, broad functional comparability under TNMM was applied: Bright Brothers Ltd. was retained because product differences did not matter where functions were broadly similar, and REIL Electricals India Ltd. was included as functionally similar. Working capital adjustment was treated as a valid claim and was directed to be allowed, subject to the assessee furnishing supporting details and data. On royalty, technical know-how and technical services, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the adjustment because CUP was adopted without comparable uncontrolled data and the principle of consistency supported the assessee, as no adjustment had been made in earlier or subsequent years on the same agreements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:12:27 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:12:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Transfer pricing comparability, working capital adjustment, and royalty benchmarking were addressed with TNMM and consistency principles.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97998</link>
      <description>In transfer pricing, broad functional comparability under TNMM was applied: Bright Brothers Ltd. was retained because product differences did not matter where functions were broadly similar, and REIL Electricals India Ltd. was included as functionally similar. Working capital adjustment was treated as a valid claim and was directed to be allowed, subject to the assessee furnishing supporting details and data. On royalty, technical know-how and technical services, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the adjustment because CUP was adopted without comparable uncontrolled data and the principle of consistency supported the assessee, as no adjustment had been made in earlier or subsequent years on the same agreements.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:12:27 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>