381 ITR 154; Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT

283 CTR 322High Court2016#5243 most cited

What is 381 ITR 154; Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

The Delhi High Court holds that expenditure on Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) by a taxpayer is not an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, adjustments for AMP expenses in transfer pricing cannot be made without specific statutory provisions.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

381 ITR 154 · Bausch & Lomb Eyecare India Pvt Ltd v ACIT · 283 CTR 322 · Section 92B · AMP expenditure · international transaction · transfer pricing adjustment · arm's length price · bright line test · associated enterprise

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92BSection 92F

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expendituresection 92fsection 92bcomparable companiestransfer pricing adjustmentarm's length priceassociated enterpriseassociated enterprisessection 92international transactiondispute resolution panel

Judgments citing 381 ITR 154; Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT

Canon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1405/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92B

…’s Brand, an international transaction cannot be inferred. The Ld. AR relied on the following decisions: • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 154 (Del) • CIT vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 154 (Del) • Honda Siel Power Products (2016) 283 CTR 322 (Del) • Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 381 ITR 227 (Del) • Widex India Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT: [2017] 78 taxmann.com 348 (Chandigarh - Trib.) • Nippon Paint India Pvt vs ACIT: [2017] 79 taxmann.com 8 (Chennai - Trib.) • Essilor India Private Limited Vs DCIT: [2016] 178 TTJ 69 (Bangalore - Trib.) • Goodyear India Ltd v DCIT: [20…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2166/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 28.02.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 28Section 32Section 80HSection 90C

…h is not permissible in law as the legally binding agreements cannot be disregarded without assigning any cogent reasons thereto. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: 52 Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd. " Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs DCIT (2016) 283 CTR 322 (Del.) " Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1433/Del/2009 41. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the TPO failed to understand that international transactions of assessee were with separate legal entities and the owner of technical know-how, designs, trade names, logos and trademarks, namely, PRC, UAS was to be compensat…