Philips India Ltd. v. ACIT

80 Taxmann.com 269High Court2017#4721 most cited

What is Philips India Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer must consider appropriate brand royalty and technical know-how royalty rates based on benchmarking studies when computing the value of AMP transactions, especially when an assessee has not paid royalty to its foreign Associated Enterprise for the use of brands and other intangibles.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Philips India Ltd v ACIT · 80 Taxmann.com 269 · transfer pricing adjustment · associated enterprises · AMP expenses · brand royalty · benchmarking study · Associated Enterprise · international transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 10DSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 195Section 270ASection 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 92ca(3)associated enterprisestransfer pricing adjustmenttnmmsection 92cassociated enterprisedispute resolution panelsection 92international transactiontransferprescribedcompany

Judgments citing Philips India Ltd. v. ACIT

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5315/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.3248, 3410/DEL/2012, 5856/Del/2010, 5315/Del/2011,52/Del/2013, 1567/Del/2014, 6741/Del/2014, 868/Del/2016 & 2511/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 Samsung India Electronics vs. Addl.CIT, Range-7 Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 3rd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon. TAN/PAN: AAACS 5123K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, Shri Bhuwan Dhooper…

Colagate-Palmolive (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8428/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhcolgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., Additional Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre, Income Tax-10(3) Main Street, Vs. Hiranandani, Gardens, Pawai, Mumbai-400076 Pan: Aaacc4309B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Perci J Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT- DR)
Section 14(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 254(1)Section 80ISection 92B

…owance of Rs.200.82 lakhs as suggested by TPO towards the shares to be contributed by AE of the assessee- company. Therefore, we delete the said disallowance made by AO by allowing ground No.18 of the appeal taken by assessee. Upon further appeal by revenue [80 Taxmann.com 269], Hon'ble Bombay High Court has upheld the aforesaid view of the Tribunal by making the following observations:- 4. Re Question (l) :-- (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the Respondent- Assessee's appeal before it by deleting the addition of Rs.200.82 lakhs being the transfer pricing adjustment on account of sales promotion a…

Samsonite South Asia P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6850/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 68(2)Section 92BSection 92DSection 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM I.T.A. No.6850/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Samsonite South Asia P. Ltd. ACIT, Cir 11(1)(2) 402, Akruti Star MIDC, R. No.1, Through Ask Centre on Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAACS 8598 L (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivram Respondent by : Shri Jayant Kumar Date of Hearing : 11.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order by…

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

…ent Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 suggested by TPO towards the shares to be contributed by AE of the assessee- company. Therefore, we delete the said disallowance made by AO by allowing ground No.18 of the appeal taken by assessee. Upon further appeal by revenue [80 Taxmann.com 269], Hon’ble Bombay High Court has upheld the aforesaid view of the Tribunal by making the following observations:- 4. Re Question (l) :— (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the Respondent- Assessee's appeal before it by deleting the addition of Rs.200.82 lakhs being the transfer pricing adjustment on account of sales promotion an…

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

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

…ent Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 suggested by TPO towards the shares to be contributed by AE of the assessee- company. Therefore, we delete the said disallowance made by AO by allowing ground No.18 of the appeal taken by assessee. Upon further appeal by revenue [80 Taxmann.com 269], Hon’ble Bombay High Court has upheld the aforesaid view of the Tribunal by making the following observations:- 4. Re Question (l) :— (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the Respondent- Assessee's appeal before it by deleting the addition of Rs.200.82 lakhs being the transfer pricing adjustment on account of sales promotion an…