PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 vs. SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE INDIA PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, following its own prior judgments in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court clarified that the Revenue would not need to file separate appeals against the instant order. However, it was stipulated that if the SLPs/appeals filed by the Revenue against the Sony Ericsson and Maruti Suzuki judgments were allowed by the Supreme Court, the law declared therein would mutatis mutandis apply to the assessee's case, and consequential actions would follow. The Court did not decide the merits of the AMP adjustment itself but disposed of the appeals based on existing High Court precedents and the pendency of related matters before the Supreme Court.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 (Revenue) against an order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal had rejected an Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) adjustment by applying the Bright Line Test. The Tribunal relied on the High Court's judgments in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Revenue's appeals challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the issue of AMP expenses and the applicability of the Bright Line Test were pending before the Supreme Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) adjustment by applying the Bright Line Test, by relying upon the cases of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, when the matter in these cases is pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the issue of AMP expenses? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the High Court has consistently held that the Bright Line Test is not a sanctioned method by law, and therefore, the appeals should be dismissed. The assessee also cited the rejection of an SLP by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU) v. M/s Whirlpool Of India Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that SLPs against the judgments in Sony Ericsson and Maruti Suzuki were pending before the Supreme Court, and the very issue of whether the Bright Line Test can be used to determine if AMP expenses constitute an international transaction was sub judice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
By way of the present appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, laying a challenge to the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘I’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), the appellant/Department has proposed the following question of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) adjustment by applying the Bright Line Test, by relying 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 12/08/2026 at 11:08:40
upon the cases of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2015] 374 ITR 118 (Delhi) and Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2016] 381 ITR 117 (Delhi), when the matter in these cases is pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the issue of AMP expenses?”
The question itself suggests that the Tribunal has relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Sony Ericsson (supra) and Maruti Suzuki Ltd (supra).
Mr. Vohra, learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee, submitted before us, a compilation containing a series of judgments and submitted that this Court has, in innumerable cases, held that the Bright Line Test is not a method sanctioned by law and therefore, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed.
He further submitted that SLP being SLP(C)29270/2016 titled Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU) v. M/s Whirlpool Of India Ltd., filed against the judgment dated 22.12.2015 rendered by this Court in ITA 610/2014 titled The Commissioner of Income Tax-LTU v. Whirlpool Of India Ltd., has also been rejected by the Supreme Court vide order dated 20.11.2024. 5. Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/Department, on the other hand, submitted that the SLP(s) against the judgments of this Court rendered in Sony Ericsson (supra) and Maruti Suzuki (supra) are pending and the very issue as to whether the Bright Line Test method can be used for the purpose of determining as to whether incurring AMP expenses
result in international transaction itself, is pending before the Supreme Court.
Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss these 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 12/08/2026 at 11:08:40
appeals filed by the Department, following the judgments of this Court in Sony Ericsson (supra) and Maruti Suzuki (supra). We, however, make it clear that the Revenue shall not be required to file separate appeal(s) against the order instant and in case, the SLP(s)/appeal(s) filed by the Revenue against the judgment rendered in Sony Ericsson (supra) and Maruti Suzuki (supra) is allowed, the law so declared shall mutatis mutandis apply to assessee’s case, as well and consequence shall follow.
All pending applications are also disposed.
DINESH MEHTA, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 10, 2026 kk
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 12/08/2026 at 11:08:40
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Saswat Traders, Jagatsinghpur vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
