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 367,154 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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT

Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 729/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3), Range-1, New C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Dy. Cit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(2), New Delhi C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar Department By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

Section 144C(8)Section 92B

…ricson Mobile Communication India Pvt.Ltd (supra) in support of aforestated observations. 8.2. Further it has been submitted by both sides that facts and circumstances in present appeal are no manner different with that of Maruti Suzuki Inida Ltd. Reported in 381 ITR 117; and Soney Ericson Mobile Communications (supra), wherein Hon’ble High Court has held that existence of international transaction must be established de hors the Bright Line Test before undertaking bench marking of AMP expenses. We therefore respectfully follow the view taken by this Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericson Mobile Communications…

Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 953/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3), Range-1, New C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Dy. Cit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(2), New Delhi C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar Department By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

Section 144C(8)Section 92B

…ricson Mobile Communication India Pvt.Ltd (supra) in support of aforestated observations. 8.2. Further it has been submitted by both sides that facts and circumstances in present appeal are no manner different with that of Maruti Suzuki Inida Ltd. Reported in 381 ITR 117; and Soney Ericson Mobile Communications (supra), wherein Hon’ble High Court has held that existence of international transaction must be established de hors the Bright Line Test before undertaking bench marking of AMP expenses. We therefore respectfully follow the view taken by this Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericson Mobile Communications…

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

…MP expenditure incurred by the assessee. The TPO while taking recourse to BLT while benchmarking the AMP expenditure incurred by the assesse, observed, that the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 117 (Del) was distinguishable on facts as against those involved in the case of the assessee which was a distributor of the products manufactured by the foreign AEs, and was not manufacturing the products as a licensed manufacturer. Apart there from, it was observed by the TPO that as the revenue had not accepted the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Cour…