SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 24(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 14 / 2025HC Delhi29 January 20252 pages
For Petitioner: ANSHIKA AGARWAL
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court admitted the appeal for consideration on specific questions of law. These questions pertain to the tribunal's direction for an ad hoc mark-up on reimbursement receipts and the tax treatment of dividends under the India-Netherlands DTAA.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sony India Private Limited, is challenging a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal raises questions regarding the mark-up on reimbursement receipts from associated enterprises and the applicability of DDT under Section 115-O concerning DTAA provisions.

What were the issues?

The key issues involve the appropriateness of an ad hoc mark-up on reimbursement receipts and the conflict between domestic law (DDT) and treaty provisions (DTAA) for non-resident shareholders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115-O

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.

$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 14/2025

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Nageswar Rao and Mr. Parth, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 24(1), NEW DELHI

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

29.01.2025 CM APPL. 5464/2025 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. This application stands disposed of. ITA 14/2025 3. Having heard Mr. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we find that this appeal raises questions which would merit consideration. 4. We take note of the judgment handed down by the Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Total Oil India P. Ltd. [(2023) 104 ITR (Trib) 1], as also the fact of similar challenge pending in number of writ petitions, including W.P. (C) 13962/2021. 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 14:25:19

5.

We consequently admit this appeal on the following questions of law:- A. Whether Hon'ble Tribunal ought not to have directed mark-up of ad hoc 20% on receipts of reimbursement from Associated enterprise of ₹50,44,669/- in the garb of determining arm's length price of reimbursement? B. Without prejudice to above, whether direction to mark-up receipt of reimbursement by 20% is excessive, perverse and unlawful especially considering arm's length mark-up determined (although unjustified in itself) by Ld. TPO by reference to pure marketing companies is only 12.25%? C. Whether the DDT prescribed under section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is in substance and effect a tax on dividend income of non-resident shareholders where recipient shareholders are residents of Netherlands entitled to the more beneficial rate of 10% under Article 10 of DTAA between India and Netherlands? 6. List on 05.05.2025 along with W.P. (C) 13962/2021 and connected matters. DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 29, 2025 yrj

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 14:25:19

More judgments on Section 115-O

All 331 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115-O →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →