How many judgments cite Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT?

220 judgments on BharatTax cite Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (381 ITR 117), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 92B, Section 143(3), Section 92C, Section 144C(13), Section 144C(5), Section 234B.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT

381 ITR 117High Court2016#408 most cited

What is Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

220

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT · 381 ITR 117 · Bright Line Test · BLT · AMP expenditure · international transaction · arm's length price · ALP · section 92B · section 92C · burden of proof · transfer pricing method

Also reported as

64 Taxmann.com 150237 Taxmann 256

Sections most often in play

Section 92B Section 143(3)Section 92C Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234B Section 271(1)(c)Section 92F

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

bright line test section 92f(v)amp expenditure section 92f cost plus method comparable uncontrolled price method section 92(1)section 92b functional analysis transactional net margin method section 92c(3)tested party

Judgments citing Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT

Johnson and Johnson Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-Ltu-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6142/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljohnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr Opp. Majas Bus Depot ……………. Appellant Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai 400 060 Pan – Aaacj0866E V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Ltu–1, Mumbai Assesseeby : Shri Rajan R. Vora A/W Shri Pranay Gandhi & Shri Harshvardhan Aggarwal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

…P expenditure by submitting that it has not incurred any AMP expenditure for brand building of the AE. Assessee also brought to the notice of the Transfer Pricing Officer the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 381 ITR 117 (Del.) to submit that the expenditure incurred for advertisement, marketing and promotion does not come within the purview of international transaction as defined under section 92B of the Act. Further, it was submitted, the bright line test adopted by the Tribunal, Special Bench, in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd (supra) was disapproved by the H…

Loreal India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly

ITA 963/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM I.T.A. No. 963/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & CO No. 139/Mum/2016 (Arising out of ITA No. 1264/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Loreal India Private Ltd., Dy. CIT – 7(1)(2) A-Wing, 8th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No. 130, First Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAACL 0738 K (Assessee) : (Revenue) I.T.A. No. 1264/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. CIT – 7(1)(2) M/s. Loreal India Private Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-40…

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)

…vanced on the strength of judgments of this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del.) as well as a string of subsequent judgments beginning with Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. CIT, (2016) 381 ITR 117. 6. Nevertheless, the main reason that weighed with the ITAT to remand the matter to the TPO was that the TPO did not have the benefit of the above decisions of this Court when the order was initially passed by the TPO. That can hardly be a ground for remanding the entire matter to the TPO. In fact, this was anticipated by this Court in Sony Eric…

Shilpa Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 13, Mumbai

ITA 2445/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan

Section 92ASection 92A(2)(j)Section 92CSection 92F

…ransaction‟ cannot be presumed by assigning some price to it and then deducing that since it is not an arm's length price, an "adjustment" has to be made. 15. In this respect, Ld. AR relied upon the decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. CIT [2016] 381 ITR 117 (Del. HC) and Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd v. ACIT [2016] 381 ITR 227 (Del HC) It was also argued that the word "Price" had not been defined in the Act. It seems to have been used in its ordinary sense as meaning money only. In this respect, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Ganesh Builders [1979] 116 ITR 911 (B…

Siemens Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 796/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.796/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs The Dcit, M/S. Siemens Limited (Successor In Interest To Siemens Building Corporate Circle – Vi (2), Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,) Chennai - 34. No.130, Pandurang Budhakar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan: Aaacd1235B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 19.06.2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 92C

…in order to exercise any of the methods prescribed U/s.92C(i) of the Act. It was therefore pleaded that the upward revision made by the Ld.Revenue Authorities may be deleted. Reliance was placed in the decision of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 381 ITR 117 and in the case CIT vs. Kotak India Pvt. Ltd., IT Appeal No.15 of 2014 order dated 11.07.2016 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The Ld.DR though conceded that the Ld.Revenue Authorities had failed to follow any of the method prescribed U/s.92C(i) of the Act, pleaded for the matter to be remitted back to the file of Ld.AO / Ld.TPO in order to dete…

Asst CIT 10(3) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6073/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…has been placed on following judicial pronouncements for various submissions / contentions:- No. Name Citation / Ref. No. Dated Authority (i) Sony Ericsson Mobile 16/03/2015 Hon’ble Delhi High Court Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (ii) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 381 ITR 117 11/12/2015 Hon’ble Delhi High Court (iii) CIT Vs. Cushman & Wakefield India 23/05/2014 Hon’ble Delhi High Court Pvt Ltd (iv) BMW India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT ITAT, Delhi 1406/Del/2015 (v) Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITAT, Delhi DCIT 1073/Del/2017 CO.Nos.243/Mum/2014 & 126/Mum/2011 Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assessment Years : 2005-06…

ACIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palm Olive (I) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2778/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

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

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT

Section 131

…) 0212 (Delhi) (Trib) wherein it was held that Judicial authorities are to interpret the law as it exists and not as it ought to be in the light of certain underlying value notions. ITA Nos.202 & 693/B/18 31 (iii) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & another Vs. CIT 381 ITR 117 (Del) wherein it was held if transfer pricing provisions were not applicable to a transaction because of the absence of an international transaction in the matter of incurring of Advertising Marketing and Promotion Expenses (AMP expenses), it was not permissible to invoke chapter X of the Act. 49. As far as the appeal by the revenue is concerned…

Synthes Medical P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia/Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: S/Shri V. Jenardhanan /V.Jayant Kumar-CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…t is also not in dispute that the assessee ha incurred AMP expenses for its distribution function. 24.The ld. AR for the assessee further contended that AMP expenses is not an international transaction and relied upon the cases of Akruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. CIT - 381 ITR 117 (Del.), Bausch & Lomb Eycare (India) (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT 381 ITR 22.7 (Del.) and CIT vs Whirlpool of India Ltd - ITA No 610 /2011(Del.) dated. 22.12.2015. 25. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case Maruti Suzuki. Ltd. (supra) held that when there being no international transaction in AMP spend with an ascertainable price, neither substa…

M/S. Philips India Limited (Formerly Philips Electronics India Litd.), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2489/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

…circumstances. Therefore, in our considered view the AMP cannot be regarded as international transaction. In holding so we find the support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs. CIT reported in 381 ITR 117 wherein it was held as under: “51. The result of the above discussion is that in the considered view of the court the Revenue has failed to demonstrate the existence of an international transaction only on account of the quantum of AMP expenditure by MSIL. Secondly, the Court is of the view that the decision in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications…

Heinz India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 1521/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80ISection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2012-13 M/s. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1)(2), Unit Nos. 1901 & 1902, 19th floor, Mumbai (Respondent) E&G Wings, Lotus Corporate Park, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063. PAN : AAACH0667B (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Nishant Thakkar Respondent by : Shri Jayant Kumar Date of Hearing : 15/11/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is arising fro…

M/S Phillips India Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 612/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

…y the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the said Court did touch upon the issue but did not conclude AMP to be an international transaction. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd reported in 381 ITR 117 (Del), wherein it was held that AMP cannot be treated as an international transaction. This decision was rendered after considering Sony Ericsson judgement. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the decision of Sony Ericsson cannot be applied as proposed by the ld TPO to determine the existence of an international transaction relating to marketing & d…

Renault India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1078/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144C(5)

…his arguments, ld. Authorised Representative 11. submitted that the burden was on the Revenue to show the existence of international transaction. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. CIT, 381 ITR 117. According to him, this burden was not discharged by the Revenue, but they had presumed it based on mere surmises. Relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kodak India (P) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, 88 DTR 242, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that legal character of the assessee and M/s. RNAIPL could not be ignor…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Philips India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…circumstances. Therefore, in our considered view the AMP cannot be regarded as international transaction. In holding so we find the support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. CIT reported in 381 ITR 117 wherein it was held as under : “51. The result of the above discussion is that in the considered view of the Court the Revenue has failed to demonstrate the existence of an international transaction only on account of the quantum of AMP expenditure by MSIL. Secondly, the Court is of the view that the decision in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication…

M/S Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…circumstances. Therefore, in our considered view the AMP cannot be regarded as international transaction. In holding so we find the support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. CIT reported in 381 ITR 117 wherein it was held as under : “51. The result of the above discussion is that in the considered view of the Court the Revenue has failed to demonstrate the existence of an international transaction only on account of the quantum of AMP expenditure by MSIL. Secondly, the Court is of the view that the decision in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication…

Fedex Express Tranportation and Supply Chain Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Fedex Express Transportation The Principal Commissioner Of & Supply Chain Services Income Tax – 9 Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, (India) Private Limited Boomerang, Unit No.801, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Wing-A, 8Th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aabcf6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)

Section 119Section 139(5)Section 263

…e subjected to income tax on standalone basis irrespective of their actual degree of economic independence and regardless of whether profits are reserved or distributed to shareholders. 13. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki reported in 381 ITR 117 while dealing with transfer pricing adjustment on AMP expenses incurred by Indian company has negative the contention that such expenses, in the absence of any understanding with AE empower the revenue to make adjustment. It is also important to note that if there are any transactions between the assessee and its affiliates that would be a subjec…

Bmw India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1406/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Bmw India Private Ltd. Vs. Dcit 7Th Floor, Tower-B, Building Circle-1(1) No. 8, Dlf Cyber City, Phase Gurgaon Ii, Gurgaon Pan:Aabcb7140C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv Department By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2015 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144 C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92B(1)Section 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 BMW India Private Ltd. Vs. DCIT 7th Floor, Tower-B, Building Circle-1(1) No. 8, DLF Cyber City, Phase Gurgaon II, Gurgaon PAN:AABCB7140C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv Department By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 08.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the final assessment order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Asse…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…by the associated enterprises and in the absence of such transaction there is no question of undertaking any benchmarking of AMP expenses. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the appellant’s own case for assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07 381 ITR 117, while distinguishing the decision in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (supra), held that the existence of international transacting relating to AMP expenses was not in dispute and therefore, the findings of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson to the extent it upholds the existence of an international transaction ca…

DCIT, Cir.-7(1)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S. Heinz India Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2101/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Nishant Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Kumar, DR

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT-7(1)-2 M/s Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 130, First D-Shiv Sagar Estate, 7th Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, floor, Dr. Annie Besant M.K. Road Road Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018 PAN No. AAACH0667B Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Jayant Kumar, DR Assessee by : Mr. Nishant Thakkar, AR Date of Hearing : 10/08/2017 Date of pronouncement : 06/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant…

Valvoline Cummins Private Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA/158/2016HC Delhi31 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…ITA No.608/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2010-11. 2. While admitting the appeal on 19th February 2016, the following question was framed for determination by this Court: “Whether in light of the decision in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 117 (Del) the ITAT was justified in holding that ITA 158/2016 Page 2 of 8 there was an international transaction between the Assessee and its Associated Enterprise with regard toadvertising, marketing and publicity (AMP) expenses and in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arms leng…