ANDHRA PAPER LIMITED,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate the commercial benefit derived from the trademark license agreements. Since the AE did not have a dominant presence in India and the assessee was marketing the foreign brand, the TPO was justified in quantifying the ALP as NIL.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Andhra Paper Limited, paid royalty to its Associate Enterprise (AE), IP-USA, for the use of trademarks. The assessee claimed these payments were at arm's length, benchmarking them using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected this method, finding no commercial benefit to the assessee and determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) as NIL.
What were the issues?
Whether the royalty payments made by the assessee to its AE for the use of trademarks were at arm's length, and if the assessee had demonstrated sufficient commercial benefit from such usage.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.422 citing24 Taxmann.com 199 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
PER SHRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 28.06.2024. I.T.A.No.349/VIZ/2024 Andhra Paper L
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.
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 92CA
- Bellsonica Auto Component India Private… vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), GurgaonITA 1041/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Smartstream Technologies India Private… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2220/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Airmeet Networks Private Limited, Bengaluru vs Assessing Officer, BengaluruITA 1487/BANG/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026