<?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 (4) TMI 268 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789199</link>
    <description>Transfer pricing adjustments on reimbursements and royalty were examined on an arm&#039;s length basis. Reimbursement of personnel cost and IT-related expenses was deleted because the assessee showed cost-to-cost recovery without markup and supported the claim with records, while the royalty adjustment was also deleted because internal and external CUP material and technical documentation supported the benchmarking, and the issue was covered by earlier orders in the assessee&#039;s own case. By contrast, the adjustment on advertisement and publicity expenses was sustained because the assessee did not produce adequate evidence of business nexus, necessity, or incurrence to establish arm&#039;s length treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 08:53:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 268 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789199</link>
      <description>Transfer pricing adjustments on reimbursements and royalty were examined on an arm&#039;s length basis. Reimbursement of personnel cost and IT-related expenses was deleted because the assessee showed cost-to-cost recovery without markup and supported the claim with records, while the royalty adjustment was also deleted because internal and external CUP material and technical documentation supported the benchmarking, and the issue was covered by earlier orders in the assessee&#039;s own case. By contrast, the adjustment on advertisement and publicity expenses was sustained because the assessee did not produce adequate evidence of business nexus, necessity, or incurrence to establish arm&#039;s length treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>