<?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 (5) TMI 552 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791350</link>
    <description>Transfer pricing on technical and training services was analysed on the basis of the assessee&#039;s functional profile and benchmarking. The assessee was found to act only as a coordinating and liaison entity for after-sales support, while the associated enterprise owned the key intangibles, assets, and risk-bearing functions. Because the assessee lacked the proprietary knowledge and resources to independently render the services, and the contractual risks remained with the associated enterprise, it was characterised as a limited-risk service provider. Its consistent TNMM benchmarking, accepted in the preceding year, could not be displaced merely due to non-filing of parent contracts where confidentiality concerns existed and the DRP had already directed reconsideration of the evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 17:40:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 552 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791350</link>
      <description>Transfer pricing on technical and training services was analysed on the basis of the assessee&#039;s functional profile and benchmarking. The assessee was found to act only as a coordinating and liaison entity for after-sales support, while the associated enterprise owned the key intangibles, assets, and risk-bearing functions. Because the assessee lacked the proprietary knowledge and resources to independently render the services, and the contractual risks remained with the associated enterprise, it was characterised as a limited-risk service provider. Its consistent TNMM benchmarking, accepted in the preceding year, could not be displaced merely due to non-filing of parent contracts where confidentiality concerns existed and the DRP had already directed reconsideration of the evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>