<?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 (6) TMI 495 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793114</link>
    <description>Royalty-related transfer pricing adjustment was deleted because the assessee had already recovered research and product development costs from associated enterprises with a 10% markup, and the adjustment ignored that disclosed revenue. Management support services adjustment was also deleted because the assessee had benchmarked the inter-linked transactions under TNMM and supported the services with agreements, role descriptions, e-mails, allocation workings and past acceptance; isolating one element for a different method and treating the services as duplicative was held inconsistent with the grouped benchmarking approach. Both additions were therefore disallowed, giving the assessee full relief on the substantive grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 07:50:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 495 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793114</link>
      <description>Royalty-related transfer pricing adjustment was deleted because the assessee had already recovered research and product development costs from associated enterprises with a 10% markup, and the adjustment ignored that disclosed revenue. Management support services adjustment was also deleted because the assessee had benchmarked the inter-linked transactions under TNMM and supported the services with agreements, role descriptions, e-mails, allocation workings and past acceptance; isolating one element for a different method and treating the services as duplicative was held inconsistent with the grouped benchmarking approach. Both additions were therefore disallowed, giving the assessee full relief on the substantive grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>