<?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 (12) TMI 1868 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469768</link>
    <description>Repeatedly amended outbound loan terms to the Mauritius associated enterprise were treated as a long-term, higher-risk arrangement, so floating LIBOR benchmarking was rejected and an arm&#039;s length rate of 6.5% applied with credit for interest already offered to tax; separate interest on overdue receivables was not sustained. For power conversion charges, the assessee&#039;s open-market benchmark was accepted under the section 80IA market value framework, and the SBU-II deduction was upheld. Section 14A disallowance was confined to exempt-income years and was not carried into section 115JB book-profit computation. Depreciation on capitalised expenditure linked to the alleged contractor was disallowed, while the limitation cross-objections were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 15:29:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1868 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469768</link>
      <description>Repeatedly amended outbound loan terms to the Mauritius associated enterprise were treated as a long-term, higher-risk arrangement, so floating LIBOR benchmarking was rejected and an arm&#039;s length rate of 6.5% applied with credit for interest already offered to tax; separate interest on overdue receivables was not sustained. For power conversion charges, the assessee&#039;s open-market benchmark was accepted under the section 80IA market value framework, and the SBU-II deduction was upheld. Section 14A disallowance was confined to exempt-income years and was not carried into section 115JB book-profit computation. Depreciation on capitalised expenditure linked to the alleged contractor was disallowed, while the limitation cross-objections were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469768</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>