Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO

328 ITR 210High Court2010#3012 most cited

What is Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO authority for?

AMP expenditure is not an international transaction. The Bright Line Test is not a valid basis for determining the existence of an international transaction or computing the arm's length price.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v Addl CIT TPO · 328 ITR 210 · AMP expenditure · international transaction · arm's length price · Bright Line Test · section 92B · section 35(1)(i)

Sections most often in play

Section 35(1)(i)Section 92B

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(v)bright line testamp expendituresection 92fsection 92ca(1)transactional net margin methodsection 92bexplanation to section 37r&d expenditurecomparable companiesarm's length pricetransfer pricing adjustment

Judgments citing Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal are allowed with above direction

ITA 1899/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 144CSection 37Section 40

…our notice the facts which were highlighted by the assessee before the DRP. ……………………. 16. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO [2010] 328 ITR 210 (Delhi), in the case of a licensed manufacturer incurring AMP expenses it was held that it incurring of AMP expenses would be an international transaction and the issue of determination of ALP was remanded. This decision was however overruled in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 121 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court left t…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd

ITA/336/2025HC Delhi03 Sept 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

…$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 336/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 .....Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms Monica Benjamin and Ms Esha, JSCs. versus CASIO INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Puru Medhira, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 03.09.2025 CM APPL. 52711/2025 (Delay in re-filing the appeal 988 days) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 988 days in filing the captioned appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands dis…

Tata Cummins Private Limited, Pune vs. The DCIT Circle-1-Jamshedpur and the Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 430/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

…length remuneration." This view of the Indian Tax Administration that incidental benefit does not require any compensation has been upheld by various Courts in India. 10.7 The Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition filed by Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2010) 328 ITR 210 (Delhi) has held that in case the licensed affiliate feels the need to use a foreign brand/logo on its product due to which the buyer would give its product a preference over other products, the benefit which the owner of foreign brand/logo gets in the form of increased awareness and goodwill in domestic market is purely incidental. No payment is…

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 284/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…also of the opinion that Bright Line Method should not have been applied by the TPO.” 11.16 Further he placed reliance on the following judicial precedents wherein it is held that AMP is not an international transaction: • Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2010) (328 ITR 210) (Delhi HC) • Honda Siel Power Products Limited (2016) (283 CTR 322) (Delhi HC) • Wrigley India (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 656/Del/2016) dated 25 September 2018 affirmed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in (2023) (459 ITR 2) (Del HC) • Acer India Private Limited [IT(TP)A No. 502 & 2387/Bang/2017) dated 10 May 2019 • Nike India Pvt Ltd. [IT(TP)A. No. 202/Bang/…

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 224/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…l brought to our notice the facts which were highlighted by the assessee before the DRP. 16. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO [2010] 328 ITR 210 (Delhi), in the case of a licensed manufacturer incurring AMP expenses it was held that it incurring of AMP expenses would be an international transaction and the issue of determination of ALP was remanded. This decision was however overruled in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 121 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court left t…

M/S Alcon Laboratories India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3376/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)

…l brought to our notice the facts which were highlighted by the assessee before the DRP. 16. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO [2010] 328 ITR 210 (Delhi), in the case of a licensed manufacturer incurring AMP expenses it was held that it incurring of AMP expenses would be an international transaction and the issue of determination of ALP was remanded. This decision was however overruled in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 121 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court left t…

Alcon Laboratories (India0 Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2889/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)

…l brought to our notice the facts which were highlighted by the assessee before the DRP. 16. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO [2010] 328 ITR 210 (Delhi), in the case of a licensed manufacturer incurring AMP expenses it was held that it incurring of AMP expenses would be an international transaction and the issue of determination of ALP was remanded. This decision was however overruled in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 121 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court left t…

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 448/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 448/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige The Deputy Trade Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, Income Tax, High Grounds Circle – 2(1)(1), Sampangi Rama Bangalore. Vs. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 31/03/2022 Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92Section 92C

…unal by order dated 06.02.2020 for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 observed and held as under: “16. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO [2010] 328 ITR 210 (Delhi), in the case of a licensed manufacturer incurring AMP expenses it was held that it incurring of AMP expenses would be an international transaction and the issue of determination of ALP was remanded. This decision was however overruled in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 121 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court left t…

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/s. NIKE India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Ground and First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. PAN : AABCN 9612 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice…

Casio India Company Private Ltd., Delhi vs. Dc/ACIT/Tp-1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 253Section 92B

…xman.com 240 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide which bright line approach has been discarded. 17. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del.) and subsequently in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 328 ITR 210 (Del.) has categorically held that BLT is not a valid basis for determining the existence of international transaction or for that matter for computing the ALP of such international transaction involving AMP expenses, the order of TPO passed by making BLT as basis of the ALP adjustment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. The taxpayer has…

M/S Rittal India Pvt Ltd, Doddaballapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2868/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniam, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2868/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2014-15 M/s Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, No.23 & 24,KIADB Industrial Area, Circle-2, LTU Veerapura, Doddaballapur-561 203. Bengaluru. PAN – AAACR 7927 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ramasubramaniam, C.A Revenue by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the a…

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/s. NIKE India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Ground and First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. PAN : AABCN 9612 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice…

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 219/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 219/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige Trade The Deputy Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, High Income Tax, Grounds Sampangi Rama Circle-2 (1)(1), Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed By The Ld.Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Essilor India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Eipl" Or The "Company" Or The "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…unal by order dated 06.02.2020 for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15 observed and held as under: “16. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO [2010] 328 ITR 210 (Delhi), in the case of a licensed manufacturer Page 7 of 11 IT(TP)A No. 219/Bang/2021 incurring AMP expenses it was held that it incurring of AMP expenses would be an international transaction and the issue of determination of ALP was remanded. This decision was however overruled in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 121 (SC)…

Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 857/Del/2021 (A.Y 2016-17)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 253Section 92B

…xman.com 240 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide which bright line approach has been discarded. 17. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del.) and subsequently in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 328 ITR 210 (Del.) has categorically held that BLT is not a valid basis for determining the existence of international transaction or for that matter for computing the ALP of such international transaction involving AMP expenses, the order of TPO passed by making BLT as basis of the ALP adjustment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. The taxpayer has…

Alcon Laboratories India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 726/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant”), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…to our notice the facts which were highlighted by the assessee before the DRP. ……………………. 16. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO [2010] 328 ITR 210 (Delhi), in the case of a licensed manufacturer incurring AMP expenses it was held that it incurring of AMP expenses would be an international transaction and the issue of determination of ALP was remanded. This decision was however overruled in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 121 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court left t…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.1727/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/s. RayBan Sun Optics India Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), SP 810 – 811, RIICO Industrial Area, New Delhi. Phase – II, Bhiwadi – 301 019 District Alwar, Rajasthan. (PAN : AABCR8209G) ITA No.1619/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ACIT, Circle 2(1), vs. M/s. RayBan Sun Optics India Ltd., New Delhi. SP 810 – 811, RIICO Industrial Area, Phase – II, Bhiwadi – 301 019 District Alwar, Rajastha…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.1727/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/s. RayBan Sun Optics India Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), SP 810 – 811, RIICO Industrial Area, New Delhi. Phase – II, Bhiwadi – 301 019 District Alwar, Rajasthan. (PAN : AABCR8209G) ITA No.1619/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ACIT, Circle 2(1), vs. M/s. RayBan Sun Optics India Ltd., New Delhi. SP 810 – 811, RIICO Industrial Area, Phase – II, Bhiwadi – 301 019 District Alwar, Rajastha…

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

…ss amount incurred by the taxpayer. Moreover, BLT approach adopted by the ld. TPO is not tenable in law. 14. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del.) and subsequently in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 328 ITR 210 (Del.) has categorically held that BLT is not a valid basis for determining the existence of international transaction or for that matter for computing the ALP of such international transaction involving AMP expenses. So, in these circumstances, the order of TPO passed by making BLT as basis of the ALP adjustment is not sustainable in the eyes 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

…man.com 240 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide which bright line approach has been discarded. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. 17. v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del.) and subsequently in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 328 ITR 210 (Del.) has 12 ITA No.9312/Del./2019 categorically held that BLT is not a valid basis for determining the existence of international transaction or for that matter for computing the ALP of such international transaction involving AMP expenses, the order of TPO passed by making BLT as basis of the ALP adjustment is not sustainable in the eyes of…

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

…ssue.” Further, the AO/TPO was directed to follow the binding judgment of this Court. 12. It is the submission of Mr. Vohra that, as explained by this Court in Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and later in Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. CIT (2016) 328 ITR 210 (Del), a basic requirement had to be fulfilled prior to commencing the exercise of determining the ALP of an international transaction. The Revenue had to discharge its onus of showing that there was an international transaction involving the Assessee and its AE with regard to the AMP expenses. If the Revenue failed to discharge this onus t…