<?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 (4) TMI 1786 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467560</link>
    <description>Advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure could not be treated as an international transaction for transfer pricing purposes without tangible material showing an arrangement, understanding, or concerted action for the associated enterprise&#039;s benefit, so the AMP adjustment was unsustainable. Royalty on brand and marketing rights was accepted as arm&#039;s length on the CUP basis, while technical know-how royalty and management service fee required fresh examination because the factual foundation was incomplete. Interest on receivables did not warrant a separate adjustment where working capital adjustment already captured the credit-period effect. A scientifically estimated warranty provision based on historical claims was allowable as an ascertained liability. Duty drawback and dividend distribution tax issues were remanded for verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:21:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1786 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467560</link>
      <description>Advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure could not be treated as an international transaction for transfer pricing purposes without tangible material showing an arrangement, understanding, or concerted action for the associated enterprise&#039;s benefit, so the AMP adjustment was unsustainable. Royalty on brand and marketing rights was accepted as arm&#039;s length on the CUP basis, while technical know-how royalty and management service fee required fresh examination because the factual foundation was incomplete. Interest on receivables did not warrant a separate adjustment where working capital adjustment already captured the credit-period effect. A scientifically estimated warranty provision based on historical claims was allowable as an ascertained liability. Duty drawback and dividend distribution tax issues were remanded for verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>