<?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 540 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793159</link>
    <description>Arm&#039;s length price for management, testing and validation services could not be fixed at nil where the assessee&#039;s aggregated TNMM benchmarking showed a higher operating margin, services were received, and no comparable uncontrolled transaction was brought on record; the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted. Notional interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises was also disallowed as a separate adjustment because the receivables were closely linked to the main transaction, already covered by TNMM and working capital adjustment, and no duplication was permitted; the addition was deleted. The section 43B payment-basis disallowance was rejected because it had not arisen in the assessment or DRP proceedings and was not within the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:26:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 540 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793159</link>
      <description>Arm&#039;s length price for management, testing and validation services could not be fixed at nil where the assessee&#039;s aggregated TNMM benchmarking showed a higher operating margin, services were received, and no comparable uncontrolled transaction was brought on record; the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted. Notional interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises was also disallowed as a separate adjustment because the receivables were closely linked to the main transaction, already covered by TNMM and working capital adjustment, and no duplication was permitted; the addition was deleted. The section 43B payment-basis disallowance was rejected because it had not arisen in the assessment or DRP proceedings and was not within the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>