<?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 (3) TMI 1556 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788801</link>
    <description>Transfer pricing comparability requires functional similarity, comparable risk profile, and reliable segmental data. HSCC India Limited was excluded because it was a Government of India enterprise with government-linked project access and support, making its consultancy and project services materially different from the assessee&#039;s technical support and payroll administration services. Mitcon Consultancy and Engineering Services Limited was also excluded because it carried on diversified activities and its signed financial statements did not provide dependable segment-wise data to isolate the relevant consultancy function. The text states that both companies were unsuitable comparables and that the assessee succeeded in challenging their inclusion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:57:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1556 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788801</link>
      <description>Transfer pricing comparability requires functional similarity, comparable risk profile, and reliable segmental data. HSCC India Limited was excluded because it was a Government of India enterprise with government-linked project access and support, making its consultancy and project services materially different from the assessee&#039;s technical support and payroll administration services. Mitcon Consultancy and Engineering Services Limited was also excluded because it carried on diversified activities and its signed financial statements did not provide dependable segment-wise data to isolate the relevant consultancy function. The text states that both companies were unsuitable comparables and that the assessee succeeded in challenging their inclusion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>