L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

152 TTJ 273Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#12244 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

INDIA MEDTRONIC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2168/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No.2168/Mum/2014 & C.O. No. 213/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2121/Mum/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) India Medtronic Private Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Income Tax, Circle-10(1)(1), Building No.12, 209, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 4Th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Churchgate, Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai –20 Mumbai 400 093 Pan – Aaaci4227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)-8(2), Solitaire Corporate Park, Room No. 218, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg. No. 12, 4Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Vs. Andheri Ghatkopar Link Rd., Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 254

…udgement of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del), the decision of the „Special Bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT (2013) 152 TTJ 273 (Del) (SB) had been reversed on the issue as regards adoption of the “Bright Line Test” (for short “BLT”) for benchmarking the AMP transactions. However, as the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony Ericsson (supra) was not available during the course of framing of the assessment by the A.O, therefore, the Tribunal remanded…

EFFECTIVE TELESERVICES PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3077/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3077/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-11) बनाम/ Effective Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Gandhinagar Circle, 1St Floor, It Tower Iv, Vs. Gandhinagar. Infocity, Nr. Infroda Circle, Gandhinagar – 382009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaa Ce9 318 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Dhinal Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Apporva Bharadwaj, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 13/05/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

For Appellant: Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Apporva Bharadwaj, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 271Section 27U

…vel, commission on sales and advertising & sales promotion which are in the nature of selling expenses. Therefore such expenses cannot be clubbed with AMP expenses. The assessee in its support also placed reliance on L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (152 TTJ 273) and contended that if the abovementioned selling expenses are excluded then AMP expenditure would hardly constitute only 0.015% of total sales. 12.2 However, the TPO observed that assessee itself has admitted the fact that the company has incurred the AMP. Accordingly the TPO held that the ITES segment of R system was incomparable. 12.3 The TPO…

MOET HENNESSY INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 85/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Moet Hennessy India Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 5(1), Unit No.1903, Tower 2, 19Th Floor, New Delhi. Indiabulls Financial Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400 013. (Pan : Aaccm4079L) (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mangal, Advocate Shri Saksham Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms. Nimita Pandey, Senior Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date Of Order : 09.04.2019 O R D E R Per Kuldip Singh:

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mangal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144C

…et of comparable companies; e) by holding that a mark-up of 15% ought to be earned by the Appellant in respect of the "alleged excessive" AMP expenses, without any basis; f) in following the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics (152 TTJ 273) (Del) (5B) without appreciating the fact that the said decision was rendered in the context of licensed manufacturer and hence not applicable to the distributor. 3 The Appellant therefore prays that the aforesaid adjustment be deleted. 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / TPO/…

M/S. MOET HENNESSY INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1906/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)

…t of comparable companies; f) by holding that a mark-up of 15% ought to be earned by the Appellant in respect of the "alleged excessive" AMP expenses, without any basis; g) in following the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics (152 TTJ 273) (Del) (SB) without appreciating the fact that the said decision was rendered in the context of licensed manufacturer and hence not applicable to the distributor. The legal proposition canvassed by the Appellant has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of BMW India. The Appellant therefore prays that the aforesaid adjustment be…

M/S. LUXOTTICA INDIA EYEWEAR PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1115/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 7Th Floor, Tower 9B, Dlf Cyber Greens, Circle 4(1), Gurgaon. New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcl3871C) (Appellant) (Respondent) 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:In The Above Cross Appeals, The Assessee Has Raised The Issue Pertaining To Adjustment Made On Account Of Advertisement, Marketing & 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

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Singh & Ms. Nena SinghFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 40

…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 ITA No. 336/2015 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 th…

JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 829/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Vora & Mr. PranayFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, DR

Section 143(3)

…59.85 Crs. During the TP proceedings, the TPO held that the said expenditure on account of AMP contributed to the brand development of the parent company ie „J&J US‟. Relying on the Special Bench decision in the case of L.G. Electronics India Private Limited (152 TTJ 273) and relying on the principles relating to the „Bright Line Method‟, the TPO considered six of the comparables ie (1) Dabar India Limited; (2) Emami Limited; (3) Godrej Consumer Products Limited; (4) Jyothi Laboratories Limited; (5) Marico Limited and (6) V V F Limited and treated the said AMP expenditure leading to the development of brand is a…

DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5490/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Pardasani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92B

…sessee was earlier disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 13.9.2013 restoring the computation of ALP of AMP expenses to the TPO to be decided in accordance with the Special Bench decision in the case of LG Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2013) 152 TTJ 273 (Del) (SB). The assessee appealed against the Tribunal order. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has disposed of the assessee’s appeal in a batch of appeals with the leading order in Sony Ericson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del) restoring the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in terms of the guid…

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

…the decision dated 23rd 2015:DHC:2485-DB ITA 16/2014 & connected matters Page 12 of 142 January, 2013 of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported as (2013) 152 TTJ 273 (Del). Further, the mark up of 12.5% as sustained by the DRP, was not based upon any comparable. Lastly, failure to account for Rs.73,83,70,409/- in the form of credit notes was not elucidated and explained by the Revenue. Accordingly, an order of remand was passed. REEBOK INDIA CO. LTD. ITA No.109/2014 (by the assessee) and ITA No.213/2…