Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT

381 ITR 227High Court2016#813 most cited

What is Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT authority for?

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

127

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT · Section 92B · Section 92C · Section 92F · international transaction · AMP expenditure · arm's length price · TNMM intensity approach · bright line test

Also reported as

237 Taxmann 304

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37(1)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92FSection 10B(2)(c)Section 145
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expendituresection 92f(v)section 92fsection 92c(3)section 92b(1)functional analysissection 92c(2)tested partysection 92bsection 92dtransactional net margin method

Judgments citing Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT

ACIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 2014/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Jarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anshu Shukla Pundir, CIT/DR &
Section 201Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Timex Group India Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 16(1), 106-107, Ambadeep, New Delhi. 14 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, Circle 16(1), vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi. 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,New Delhi. PAN : AAACT0773C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Anshu Shukla Pundir, CIT/DR & Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.10.2021 Date of order :…

Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 1502/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Jarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anshu Shukla Pundir, CIT/DR &
Section 201Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Timex Group India Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 16(1), 106-107, Ambadeep, New Delhi. 14 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, Circle 16(1), vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi. 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,New Delhi. PAN : AAACT0773C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Anshu Shukla Pundir, CIT/DR & Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.10.2021 Date of order :…

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Shrivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

…brand of SMC.” 24. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on few other decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that have upheld the same proposition: Whirlpool of India Ltd vs. DCIT [2016] 381 ITR 154; Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT [2016] 381 ITR 227; Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. DCIT [2016] 283 CTR 322. 25. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the Transfer Pricing Study report and catena of other decisions in support of his argument that incurring of AMP expenses by the assessee company did not fall within the ambit and definition of “international transaction” 17 within the meaning of sec…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 8700/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

…reported in 381 ITR 117 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd. reported in 381 ITR 154 (Delhi); (iii) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT reported in 237 Taxman 304 (Delhi); (iv) Bausch and Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. reported in CIT 381 ITR 227 (Delhi); 5.1 In the year under consideration there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to A.Y. 2009-10 and even the agreements between assessee and the AE continue to be operational for the year under consideration. We, therefore, concur with the reasoning given by the coordinate Bench for A.Y. 2009- 10,wherein, it…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7376/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92F

…reported in 381 ITR 117 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd. reported in 381 ITR 154 (Delhi); (iii) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT reported in 237 Taxman 304 (Delhi); (iv) Bausch and Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. reported in CIT 381 ITR 227 (Delhi); 5.1 In the year under consideration there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to A.Y. 2009-10 and even the agreements between assessee and the AE continue to be operational for the year under consideration. We, therefore, concur with the reasoning given by the coordinate Bench for A.Y. 2009-10,wherein, it…

Kimberly Clark Lever P.Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…aised by the assessee-company on this issue are partly allowed.” 34. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) is reiterated in series of decisions like Bausch and Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd., 381 ITR 227 and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court followed the decision in the case CIT vs. Gillette India Ltd. (2019) 411 ITR 459 and the Hon’ble High Court had categorically ruled out the applicability of bright line test on advertising and marketing promotion expenditure. The ratio that can be culled out in all the decisions cited above is that (1) In the…

Rayban Optics India Ltd., Bhiwani vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1727/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…expenses, the order of TPO passed by making BLT as basis of the ALP adjustment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 21. Furthermore, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in subsequent decisions viz. Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT (2016) 381 ITR 227 (Del.) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 304 held that it is for 14 ITA No.1727/Del./2016 ITA No.1619/Del./2016 the Revenue to firstly discharge the onus to prove the existence of an international transaction between the taxpayer and its AE and only thereafter ALP of international transactions involving AMP can be…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd., Bhiwani

ITA 1619/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…expenses, the order of TPO passed by making BLT as basis of the ALP adjustment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 21. Furthermore, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in subsequent decisions viz. Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT (2016) 381 ITR 227 (Del.) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 304 held that it is for 14 ITA No.1727/Del./2016 ITA No.1619/Del./2016 the Revenue to firstly discharge the onus to prove the existence of an international transaction between the taxpayer and its AE and only thereafter ALP of international transactions involving AMP can be…

Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5146/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamblenikon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Plot No. 71, Circle-3(1) Sectdor-32, Institutional Area, 2Nd Floor, Hsiidc Building, Gurgaon, Haryana Vaniyjaya Nikunj, Udyog Pin 122001 Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv & Sh. Ankit Sahni, Adv Respondent By Sh. Mritunjoy Baranwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2020

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92C(2)

…it was held that AMP is not an International transaction under the purview of Section 92 the Act:  Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs CIT(A)[2016] 381 ITR 117(Delhi)  Honda Siel Power Products (ITA No. 346/2015)  Baush & Lomb Eyecare (India)(P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT(2016) 381 ITR 227 (Delhi)  Whirlpool of India Vs. DCIT (TS-622-HC-2015(Del)-TP)  Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT 2018 173 ITD 55 (Delhi-Trib)  Sennheiser Electronics India (P) Ltd Vs ACIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 326 (Delh-Trib)  Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5650/Del/2011, 6240/del/2012 and 916/Del/2014)  PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.…

M/S. Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1970/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ourt of Delhi has held that the first step before bench marking the AMP expenses it should be proved that such AMP expenses is an International Transactions as in the case of Maruti Suzuki (2016) 381 ITR 117, Whirlpool (2016) 318 ITR 154, Bansch & Lomb (2016) 381 ITR 227 and other cases. Hon’ble High Court has given the ruling that mere excess expenditure on AMP is not a basis of holding AMP expenses as International Transactions. The findings of the Hon’ble High Court is in no way come against the findings of the Hon’ble ITAT in assesses case against the finding for A.Y. 2011-12 as entire AMP functions is held…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1053/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That on facts and in law the
Section 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1088/Del./2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Xerox India Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 5th Floor, Vatika Business Circle-27(2), Park, Sector-49, Sohna New Delhi Road, Gurgaon PAN :AAACM8634R (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No.1053/Del./2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Vs. M/s. Xerox India Ltd., Circle-27(2), 5th Floor, Vatika Business New Delhi Park, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon PAN :AAACM8634R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Depart…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the taxpayer is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9481/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 37(1)Section 92C

…PO passed by making BLT as basis of the ALP adjustment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12 ITA No.9481/Del./2019 15. Furthermore, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in subsequent decisions viz. Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT (2016) 381 ITR 227 (Del.) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 304 held that it is for the Revenue to firstly discharge the onus to prove the existence of an international transaction between the taxpayer and its AE and only thereafter ALP of international transactions involving AMP can be computed. 16. It is further contended by the ld…

Suzuki Motorcycles (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

ITA 7142/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 928

…onsidering the excess expenditure beyond the bright line as an international transaction was unwarranted. 11. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in series of decisions inter alia Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.; Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT (2016) 381 ITR 227 (Del) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 304 held that the Revenue is to discharge first the onus of proving the existence of an international transaction between assessee and the AE and such transactions cannot be inferred merely on the basis of bright line test. Revenue has to discharge the initial onus by bringing o…

Casio India Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

ITA 9312/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…d by the taxpayer in which for promoting the sales of its product in India and not to benefit in any manner its AE i.e. Casio Japan. 19. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in subsequent decisions viz. Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT (2016) 381 ITR 227 (Del.) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 304 held that it is for the Revenue to 13 ITA No.9312/Del./2019 firstly discharge the onus to prove the existence of an international transaction between the taxpayer and its AE and only thereafter ALP of international transactions involving AMP can be computed. 20. In th…

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2601/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…A) in case of manufacturing segment is concerned, it is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki (supra), Whirlpool India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 381 ITR 154, Bausch & Lamb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 381 ITR 227, ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 Volvoline Cummins Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT, 283 CTR 322, has held that the expenditure on account of AMP expenditure is not an international transaction. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported i…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2366/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…A) in case of manufacturing segment is concerned, it is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki (supra), Whirlpool India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 381 ITR 154, Bausch & Lamb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 381 ITR 227, ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 Volvoline Cummins Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT, 283 CTR 322, has held that the expenditure on account of AMP expenditure is not an international transaction. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported i…

ACIT, CC- 31, New Delhi vs. Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…A) in case of manufacturing segment is concerned, it is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki (supra), Whirlpool India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 381 ITR 154, Bausch & Lamb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 381 ITR 227, ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 Volvoline Cummins Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT, 283 CTR 322, has held that the expenditure on account of AMP expenditure is not an international transaction. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported i…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 31, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…A) in case of manufacturing segment is concerned, it is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki (supra), Whirlpool India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 381 ITR 154, Bausch & Lamb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 381 ITR 227, ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 Volvoline Cummins Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT, 283 CTR 322, has held that the expenditure on account of AMP expenditure is not an international transaction. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported i…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -9 vs. Valvoline Cummins Pvt. Ltd

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/187/2020HC Delhi13 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 260A

…erved if the matter is remanded to the TPO, or even the ITAT, for this purpose. 18. This Court has in similar circumstances in a series of decisions including Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra); Bausch & Lomb Eye care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT (2016) 381 ITR 227 (Del) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 304 emphasized the importance of the Revenue having to first discharge the initial burden upon it with regard to showing the existence of an international transaction between the Assessee and the AE. 19. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that t…

Brother International (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(2) (Earlier the Income Tax Officer 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5075/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-15(1)(2), M/S Brother International Room No. 483A, 4Th Floor, Vs. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 703/704, Powai Plaza, Mumbai-400020. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aadcb0263E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Brother International The Assistant (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Unit No. 408, 4Th Floor, B- Tax, 15(1)(2), [Earlier The Wing, 215 Atrium, Andheri Income Tax Officer- Kurla Road, Andheri (East), 10(3)(1)], Room No. 483A, Mumbai-400059. 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. Pan No. Aadcb0263E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, Mr. Pawan SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Heliwal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…with an ascertainable price, neither substantive nor machinery provision of Chapter X were applicable to the transfer pricing adjustment exercise”. In Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2015) [2016] 381 ITR 227 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court again held that “where existence of an international transaction involving AMP expense with an ascertainable price is unable to be M/s Brother International (India) Pvt. Ltd. invoked to undertake a TP adjustment exercise. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Whirpool of India Limited (2015) [2016] 381 ITR 154 (De…