GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 467/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2021AY 2016-1720 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of trademark fee adjustment was covered by its previous decisions in favour of the assessee. It also held that the ad-hoc disallowance of advertisement expenses was not permissible and directed its deletion.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Goodyear India Ltd., appealed against an assessment order that included additions on account of transfer pricing adjustments for trademark fees and an ad-hoc disallowance of advertisement expenses. The additions were sustained by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

What were the issues?

Whether the transfer pricing adjustment for trademark fees was justified, and whether ad-hoc disallowance of advertisement expenses is permissible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 37(1),Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(14)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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “I-1” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & DR.B.R.R.KUMAR

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 08.07.2021Pronounced: 11.08.2021

PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution

Panel (“DRP”) for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

“That the impugned order of assessment framed by the assessing officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as 'DRP') under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), is bad in law and unsustainable.

1.

1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →