<?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 (7) TMI 275 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794389</link>
    <description>Failure to issue a draft assessment order before making a transfer pricing adjustment against an eligible assessee breaches the mandatory, jurisdictional assessment procedure. A subsequent corrigendum cannot cure that defect. Applying the principles in Vijay Television and Rinku R. Rai, the assessment order was treated as vitiated, while S.G. Asia Holdings was considered inapplicable on the stated facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2026 08:15:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=910025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 275 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794389</link>
      <description>Failure to issue a draft assessment order before making a transfer pricing adjustment against an eligible assessee breaches the mandatory, jurisdictional assessment procedure. A subsequent corrigendum cannot cure that defect. Applying the principles in Vijay Television and Rinku R. Rai, the assessment order was treated as vitiated, while S.G. Asia Holdings was considered inapplicable on the stated facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>