Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 92B, Section 144C(13), Section 92C, Section 234B, Section 14A.

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

499 judgments on BharatTax cite Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (374 ITR 118), spanning 2015 to 2026.

374 ITR 118High Court2015#139 most cited

What is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

499

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 374 ITR 118 · Section 92B · AMP expenditure · international transaction · bright line test · burden of proof · revenue

Also reported as

2015 SCC OnLine DEL 8083

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 92B Section 144C(13)Section 92C Section 234B Section 14A Section 37 Section 37(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

bright line test amp expenditure section 92f functional analysis cost plus method tested party section 92c(3)section 92b transactional net margin method cup method benchmarking analysis comparable companies

Judgments citing Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

India Medtronic P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2160/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarit(Tp)A No.2160/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 India Meditronic Pvt. Ltd., Acit 10(1)(1) 1241 Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai Vs. Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R VoraFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “K”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member IT(TP)A No.2160/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 India Meditronic Pvt. Ltd., ACIT 10(1)(1) 1241 Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai Vs. Bldg. No.12, 4th floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 PAN AAACI4227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajan R Vora Respondent By : Shri Jayant Kumar Date of Hearing : 24.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member The aforesaid appeal has been…

M/S. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3727/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B New Delhi Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaaca5313P Ay: 2007-08 Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R

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

…Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 300, which stands over ruled by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 240. Hon’ble Court while deciding Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd (supra) categorically held that Bright Line Test is not an appropriate yardstick for determining existence of an international transaction for calculating arm’s length price. 7.2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court while deciding question of law raised for Assessment Year 2008-09 held as under…

M/S. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R

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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R

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

Mary Kay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 7333/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Mary Kay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., Dy.Commissioner Of 837 & 838, Sector 38, Income Tax, Vs Opposite Huda Market, Circle 16(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv. Department By: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…the case of the assessee. We also note that now there are numerous judicial precedents in which the Hon’ble Courts have disapproved and rejected the Bright Line method. In the case of Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT-2 reported in (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has specifically disapproved and rejected the Bright Line method. Although, the assessee did not press its appeal in the quantum proceedings before the ITAT, the same does not lead to the inference that the assessee had accepted the Bright Line method and the consequent transfer pricing adjustments in the ye…

M/S. Acer India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 502/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Shri Niranjan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…of the Tribunal in the case of assessee in ITA No. 5140/DEL/2011. IT(TP)A Nos.502 & 2837/Bang/2017 Page 28 of 45 10. At the outset, we have to state that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd vs CIT 374 ITR 118 has discarded the BLT. The Hon'ble High Court, at para 120 held as under: "120. Notwithstanding the above position, the argument of the Revenue goes beyond adequate and fair compensation and the ratio of the majority decision mandates that in each case where an Indian subsidiary of a foreign AE incurs AMP expenditure should be subjected to the b…

M/S the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 187/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2010-11 M/s. The Himalaya Drug Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Company, of Income-Tax, Makali, Central Circle – 1(1), Bangalore – 562 162. Bangalore. PAN : AADFT 3025 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CA Revenue by : Smt. Susan D. George, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 06.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ7079D Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER Per N.…

The ACIT RG 10(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Netafim Irrigation India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3668/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh

…e since the payment of royalty is closely linked to the other international transactions, hence, cannot be evaluated separately. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Sony Erections Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 374 ITR 118; ii) Cummins India Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2015] 68 SOT 14; iii) Demag Cranes and Component India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2015] 30 taxmann.com 364; iv) Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO, [2010] 7 taxmann.com 117; and v) Intimate Fashion India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2012] 24 taxmann.com 80. 11 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 9. The learned Authorised Rep…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Casio India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2276/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao & SandeepFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary CIT DR &

Section 144CSection 92B

…tional transaction. He further submitted that ultimately both TPO and DRP have upheld the application of BLT which now stands rejected by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in series of judgment, viz., Sony Ericson Mobile Communication India Ltd. reported in (2015) 374 ITR 118, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT, (2015) 381 ITR 117, CIT vs. Whirlpool India Ltd., 280 ITR 154 and Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 381 ITR 227. Thus, here in this case, there is no independent international transaction which needs to be separately benchmarked and the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'bl…

Casio India Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1764/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao & SandeepFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary CIT DR &

Section 144CSection 92B

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

…e “Bright Line Test” in order to decide the issue if AMP expenditure by the taxpayer is international transaction leading to the brand building of its AE has since been overruled by the 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…

M/S Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 996/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Yakult Danone India P Ltd. D.C.I.T. Circle 27(1) 16, 1St Floor Vs. New Delhi Community Centre Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I New Delhi

Section 143Section 144CSection 92BSection 92CSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: Bench I-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2011-12 Yakult Danone India P Ltd. D.C.I.T. Circle 27(1) 16, 1st Floor vs. New Delhi Community Centre Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I New Delhi PAN: AAACY2585R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Ms.Vrinda, Adv. Revenue by Sh. HK Choudhary, CIT, D.R. Date of Hearing 20/02/2019 Date of 29/03/2019 Pronouncement ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against final assessment ord…

M/S. Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1197/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

…ngth price thereof instead of remanding the issues to the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) for a fresh consideration?” 3 The Hon’ble High Court, referring two of its decisions in the cases of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del) and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT, (2016) 381 ITR 117, has remitted the case back to the file of Tribunal vide order dated 24.05.2017 with the following directions : “5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the ase before the ITAT was argued at length and the views of the TPO as well as the Dispute Resoluti…

Celio Future Fashion P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as

ITA 1928/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Celio Future Fashion Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Celio Future Fashion), The Assistant Commissioner Vs. A Wing, Unit No. 301 & 302, Of Income Tax-9(2)(1), Near Graham Firth Compound, Mumbai Opposite Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai [Pan : Aadcc3844J]

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…s decision in Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 381 ITR 227 (Del), while considering the decision of this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del), noted that: "The RP Method loses its accuracy and reliability where the reseller adds substantially to the value of the product or the goods are further processed or incorporated into a more sophisticated product or when the product/service is transformed." 12. Therefore, a contrario, when the reseller does not add any value to the product…

Aircom International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Gosain[A.Y 2011-12] M/S Aircom International [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, M-12, Balrama House Circle - 2 (1) Karampura, Commercial Complex New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

…ployment [product delivered], then, there is no question of making any adjustment in so far as intra group services is concerned. 9. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd 374 ITR 118 and the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court read as under: “(v) Where the Assessing Officer/TPO accepts the comparables adopted by the assessed, with or without making adjustments, as a bundled transaction, it would be illogical and improper to treat AMP expenses as a separate international transaction, for the simple reason that if the…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 910/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Gosain[A.Y 2007-08] M/S Pernod Ricard [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, [Formerly Known As Central Circle -31 Seagram India Pvt Ltd New Delhi 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi Pan: Aaacs 4781 P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Smt. Rashi Khanna, Adv. Shri Yojit Pareek, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT-DR

Section 153A

…adjustment post DRP directions 52,05,80,803 (0)=(M)-N) 17. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is before us. 18. At the very outset, the ld. AR stated that the BLT has been discarded by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Limited 374 ITR 118. It is the say of the ld. AR that since the BLT has been negated, the subject addition deserves to be quashed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 19.09.2018 in the case of M/s Sennheiser Electronics India Ltd. ITA No. 7574/DEL/2017. The ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional H…

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi

ITA 6372/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charym/S. Sony India Private Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, A-18, Mohan Cooperative Special Range-8, Industrial Estate, Mathura New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aabcs1571Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C

…With respect to the protective adjustment made by the learned transfer pricing officer by bright line test method it was submitted by the learned authorised representative that it is contrary to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in Sony Ericsson 374 ITR 118. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court we hold that bright line test cannot be used for making an adjustment of excessive advertisement marketing promotion expenditure. 18. In view of above facts, we direct the learned assessing officer/transfer pricing officer to not to make adjustment by addition of re…

Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi

ITA 6370/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charym/S. Sony Mobile Vs. Addl. Cit, Communications India Private Special Range-8, Ltd, New Delhi A-18, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan: Aabcs1571Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

…(though unknown to law) as adopted by TPO and approved by DRP. Ground of Appeal 20 Protective adjustment made by Ld. TPO and Approved by Ld. DRP by application of Bright Line Test being contrary to law laid down by jurisdictional High court in Sony Ericsson (374 ITR 118) deserves to be deleted. Prayer: Appellant prays for correction of above errors and consequent relief by way of deletion of substantive adjustment and further deletion of protective adjustment being contrary to law laid down by jurisdictional High Court. In case Appellant succeeds on above Grounds, the other Grounds of appeal would become academi…

Msd Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi

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

ITA 7569/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143Section 92BSection 92CSection 92F

…Pricing regulations in India, an adjustment on account of the arm’s length price of AMP expenses could not be made; 3.10. erred in applying BLT against the binding precedent as laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Mobile Communications [374 ITR 118 (Del)]; 3.11. not appreciating that ‘bright line limit’ is not a prescribed method under the purview of section 92C of the Act; 3.12. not appreciating that Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM) analysis included AMP expenses and could not be benchmarked and adjusted as a part of the adjustment pertaining to marketing intangibles; 3.13. applyi…