PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 vs. TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 304 / 2023HC Delhi25 May 20233 pages
For Petitioner: PUNEET RAI
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no substantial question of law regarding the bright line test, as the ITAT's view aligned with a previous High Court judgment. For the royalty issue, the court issued a notice to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning AY 2013-2014. The appeal raised two main issues: the applicability of the bright line test for advertisement expenses and the remand of the royalty payment issue.

What were the issues?

Whether the bright line test applies to advertisement expenses and whether the issue of royalty payment to associated enterprises should be remanded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 304/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7..... Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Madhavi Shukla and Mr Ashnini Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel.

versus

TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Mr Rohit Tiwari and Ms Tanya, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R %

25.05.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CAV 278/2023 1. Since appearance has been entered on behalf of the respondent/assessee, the caveat is discharged. CM APPL.28276/2023 2. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. CM APPL.28278/2023 3. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 4. Given the period of delay involved, we are inclined to condone the delay in re-filing the appeal. 4.1 It is ordered accordingly.

ITA 304/2023

page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:48

5.

The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 304/2023 and CM APPL.28277/2023[Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 93 days in filing the appeal] 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-2014. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to challenge the order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 8. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, submits that there are two broad issues which arise for consideration. (i) First, whether in determiningthe Arm’s Length Price concerning advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses, the Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the bright line test would not apply. (ii) Second, whether the Tribunal was right in remanding the issue concerning royalty paid by the respondent/assesseeto its Associated Enterprises. 9. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, it is not disputed by Mr Rai, that the view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the judgment of this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax - III, (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del.). 10. Mr Rai, however, says that the aforementioned decision of this Court has been challenged by the appellant/revenue, by way of an SLP. We are informed, that the said SLP is pending adjudication.

ITA 304/2023

page 2 of 3

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:48

11.

Accordingly, insofar as the first issue is concerned, and as far as this Court is concerned, no substantial question of law arises. 11.1 However, it is made clear, that the parties will abide by the final decision taken in the SLP filed by the appellant/revenue. 12. As regards the other issue referred to hereinabove, issue notice. 12.1 Mr Rohit Tiwariaccepts notice on behalf of the respondent/assessee. 13. The respondent/assessee will file a reply to the application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonationof delay in filing the appeal. 14. The reply would be filed within the next four weeks. 14.1 Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed at least five days before the next date of hearing. 15. List the matter on 08.11.2023. 16. Counsel for the parties will file their written submissions, not exceeding three pages each, at least five days before the next date of hearing.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

MAY 25, 2023 / tr

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 304/2023

page 3 of 3

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:48

More judgments on Section 92C

All 1,769 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →