M/S. LUXOTTICA INDIA EYEWEAR PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the issue of AMP expenses to the TPO for fresh adjudication in accordance with the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in the Sony Ericsson case. The Revenue's appeal on other issues was dismissed as it had reached finality.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in trading sunglasses and spectacles. The appeals concerned adjustments on account of Advertisement, Marketing, and Sales Promotion (AMP) expenses and other issues raised by the Revenue.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the adjustment of AMP expenses. The Revenue also raised issues regarding the most appropriate method for benchmarking imports, prior period expenses, warranty provisions, and TDS non-deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT499 citing374 ITR 118 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax8 citing152 TTJ 273 · 2013 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “I-1” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI I.C. SUDHIR & SHRI L.P. SAHU
Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT, Vs. Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., 7th Floor, Tower 9B, DLF Cyber Circle-4(1), New Delhi. Greens, Gurgaon. (PAN: AABCL3871C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Piyush Singh & Ms. Nena Singh, Adv. Department by: Shri Amrendra Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 08 .03.2016 Date of pronouncement: 06 :06.2016 ORDER
PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
In the above cross appeals, the assessee has raised the issue pertaining to adjustment made on account of advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expense (AMP Expenses). The Revenue on the other hand has raised the issue of adoption of TNMM as the most appropriate method to benchmark transaction pertaining to import of goods, prior period expenses,
2 provisions for warranty expenses and non-deduction of TDS under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon.
The assessee was incorporated in India on 15.11.2007 and commenced it actual operations from February 2008. It is primarily engaged in the business of trading of sunglasses and spectacles frames.
The issue involved in the grounds of the appeal preferred by the assessee is regarding adjustment made on account of advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expense (AMP expenses). The Learned AR pointed out that first time the appeal came up for hearing before the ITAT in the year 2014, wherein the ITAT vide its order dated 5.11.2014 disposed off the issue by setting aside the matter to the file of the TPO to decide the issue in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Delhi Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) – 152 TTJ 273 (SB) (Delhi). Aggrieved by the decision of the ITAT, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 20.5.2015 remanded the matter
3 back to the ITAT and directed the ITAT to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Sony Erection Communication India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 374 ITR 118 (Del.).
Regarding the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Learned AR pointed out that against the order dated 5.11.2014 of the ITAT, the Revenue had also preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court challenging the above issues and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 6.11.2015 in has been pleased to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue and uphold the findings of the ITAT.
The Learned CIT(DR) did not dispute the above submissions made by the Learned AR.
In view of the above developments, we find that the only issue pending adjudication before us in the above cross appeals is in respect of AMP expenses. We thus respectfully following the above order dated 20.5.2015 of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the appeal preferred by the assessee (ITA No. 336/2015), while setting aside the matter to the file of the learned TPO direct him to decide the issue of adjustment
4 made on account of AMP expenses applying the ratios of decision in the case of Sony Erricson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) after considering merits of the matter including comprehension of the assessee that AMP determination itself, by taking into consideration that the AMP expenses is not warranted in the circumstances. It is needless to mention over here that while deciding the issue afresh as directed above, the learned TPO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
So far as appeal preferred by the Revenue is concerned, we find that the issues raised in the grounds regarding adoption of TNMM as the most appropriate method to benchmark transaction pertaining to import of goods, prior period expenses, provisions for warranty expenses and non-deduction of TDS under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act have reached finality by the order dated 6.11.20015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in as the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to uphold the findings of the ITAT on the issues on earlier occasion vide order dated 5.11.2014, against which the Revenue was in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. The appeal preferred by the department is thus dismissed.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026