<?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 (5) TMI 2266 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467980</link>
    <description>Transfer pricing adjustment for management support services cannot be sustained at nil where the services are supported by the service arrangement, debit notes and correspondence, and are shown to be integral to business operations. The arm&#039;s length mark-up of 5% was treated as reasonable, especially since the expenditure was not separately booked in the financials and similar payments had been accepted in earlier years. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had taken an inconsistent approach without distinguishing earlier assessment years where relief had already been granted. On that basis, the nil valuation was rejected and the upward adjustment was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 20:17:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2266 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467980</link>
      <description>Transfer pricing adjustment for management support services cannot be sustained at nil where the services are supported by the service arrangement, debit notes and correspondence, and are shown to be integral to business operations. The arm&#039;s length mark-up of 5% was treated as reasonable, especially since the expenditure was not separately booked in the financials and similar payments had been accepted in earlier years. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had taken an inconsistent approach without distinguishing earlier assessment years where relief had already been granted. On that basis, the nil valuation was rejected and the upward adjustment was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>