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

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 367,154 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 92BSection 144C(13)Section 92CSection 234BSection 14ASection 37Section 37(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expendituresection 92ffunctional analysiscost plus methodtested partysection 92c(3)section 92btransactional net margin methodcup methodbenchmarking analysiscomparable companies

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

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.283/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Hp India Sales Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.24, Salarpuria Arena Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Hosur Main Road Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Arun Kumar, Cit(Tp)-2-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 28.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 13 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal Dated 22.06.2022. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing, Did Not Raise Any Specific Plea With Regard To Grounds 1 To 5, 10, 12 & 13 (Also Sub-Grounds), Hence, The Same Are Dismissed. The Surviving Grounds, Namely, Grounds 6 To 9, 11 & Its Sub-Grounds, Read As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Arun Kumar, CIT(TP)-2-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92B

…e dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2016) 381 ITR 117 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Delhi) and directed the A.O. to delete the AMP TP adjustment and the mark up thereon. The relevant finding of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2012-2013, reads as follows:- “8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue as to whether AMP expenditure is an internati…

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

…the royalty payments made by the Appellant are at arm’s length (Para 48 to 51 at Pg 1390 of Case Law Compilation). Reliance is also placed on, among others, para 101 of Delhi High Court decision in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India v ACIT 55 Taxmann.com 240. 2.40 The Appellant also submits that the methodology adopted by TPO is not correct. The TPO compared the royalty and R&D expenditure to net sales in case of comparable vis a vis that of royalty to Local Value Addition (LVA) in case of the Appellant instead of net sales. In Appellant’s own case for AY 2013-14 [ITA No.2016/Bang/2018, dated…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi vs. Xerox India Ltd

ITA - 487 / 2022HC Delhi25 Nov 2022
Section 10(2)(xv)

…$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 487/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue. versus XEROX INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Nageshwer Rao, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 25.11.2022 C.M.No.50944/2022 Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in re- filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA No.487/2022 Present income tax appeal has been filed challenging the order dated…

Suzuki Motor Cycles (I) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8054/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

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

…on facts and in law in applying Bright Line Test not appreciating that use of bright line test for the purpose of undertaking benchmarking analysis has been jettisoned by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Pvt Ltd 374 ITR 118. 19. Without prejudice that the assessing officer/TPO erred on facts and in law, in not appreciating that the AMP expenses incurred Suzuki Motor Cycles Vs. DCIT by the appellant was appropriately established to be at arm’s length applying TNMM. 20. Without prejudice that the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in considering rebate amou…

Suzuki Motorcycles (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8167/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

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

…on facts and in law in applying Bright Line Test not appreciating that use of bright line test for the purpose of undertaking benchmarking analysis has been jettisoned by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Pvt Ltd 374 ITR 118. 19. Without prejudice that the assessing officer/TPO erred on facts and in law, in not appreciating that the AMP expenses incurred Suzuki Motor Cycles Vs. DCIT by the appellant was appropriately established to be at arm’s length applying TNMM. 20. Without prejudice that the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in considering rebate amou…

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)

…eated to be an international transaction. In support, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 381 ITR 117 and M/s. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT reported in 374 ITR 118. 9.5 On the contrary the Ld. CIT.DR placed reliance on orders passed by authorities below. 9.6 We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 9.7 We know that the DRP refused to follow the above decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court by observing that these decisions have not been accepted by the Departme…

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)

…eated to be an international transaction. In support, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 381 ITR 117 and M/s. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT reported in 374 ITR 118. 9.5 On the contrary the Ld. CIT.DR placed reliance on orders passed by authorities below. 9.6 We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 9.7 We know that the DRP refused to follow the above decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court by observing that these decisions have not been accepted by the Departme…

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 184/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, DR
Section 234ASection 35(1)(i)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.184/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income- 19(1)&(2) Peenya Industrial Area tax II Phase Circle 6(1)(1) Chokkasandra Village Vs. Bangalore Bangalore PAN NO : AADCS2549E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.P. Srinivas, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 07.11.2022 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This a…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 vs. Moet Hennessy (I) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/408/2022HC Delhi02 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 92C

…h November, 2015, allowed the Assessee’s objection, by deleting the ALP adjustment made by the TPO by applying BLT method in light of the judgment of this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax – III, (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del). 5. The DRP held that comparables of similar functional intensity are to be taken into consideration for determining the ALP. However, DRP after Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:11.11.2022 21:13:27 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos. 408/2022 Page 3 of 6 observing the comparables concluded that the Assessee herein has a bett…

Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax-1 vs. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA/175/2020HC Delhi27 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 14ASection 260A

…on account of AMP expenditure, the ITAT has observed that the said action of the TPO appears to have been prompted due to the decision of this Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax – III, (2015) 374 ITR 118, wherein, inter alia, this Court has held that the Bright Line Test cannot be used as a method for computing Arm's Length Price and selling expenses are to be excluded from the ambit of AMP expenditure. The ITAT also noted the decision of its predecessor bench in Assessee’s own case for AY 2007-08, wherein it was observed that incentive paid to 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

…t the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 381 ITR 117, and in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 13 IT(TP)A No. 448/Bang/2022 vs. CIT reported in 374 ITR 118 which were ignored by the authorities below. 7. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal 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…

Csav Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1941/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92D

…(TNMM), on aggregation of transactions, as prescribed under section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961". In this backdrop, we can usefully refer to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Corporation Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT [(2015) 374 ITR 118(Del)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, observed as follows: "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 func…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Delhi vs. Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd

ITA/331/2022HC Delhi14 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

…present appeals is covered by the judgment passed by this Court dated 31st July, 2019 in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No.709/2019 and in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax; (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del). 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Revenue has not accepted the said judgement and has challenged the same before the Supreme Court. 6. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date. 7. Consequently, in view o…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Delhi vs. Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd

ITA/330/2022HC Delhi14 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

…present appeals is covered by the judgment passed by this Court dated 31st July, 2019 in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No.709/2019 and in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax; (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del). 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Revenue has not accepted the said judgement and has challenged the same before the Supreme Court. 6. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date. 7. Consequently, in view o…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd

Appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgments passed by the learned predecessor

ITA/291/2022HC Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: The Supreme Court. This Is A Digitally Signed Judgement. Neutral Citation No: 2022/Dhc/003391

…bunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos.1619/Del/2016 and 1727/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the ITAT has erred in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication vs. CIT reported in 374 ITR 118 (Del), as the Department has not accepted the decision passed in Sony Ericsson (supra) and has preferred an appeal against the said decision before the Supreme Court. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003391 ITA 291/2022 Page 2 of 3 3. He also states that the ITAT has erred in holding that the Bright Line Test…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Sharp Business Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgments passed by the learned predecessor

ITA-292/2022HC Delhi31 Aug 2022

…ITA 292/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~S-16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 292/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel withi Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr.Standing Counsel and Mr.Nikhil Jain, Advocate. versus SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Himanshu S.Sinha, Advocate with Mr.Bhuwan Dhoopar, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 31st August, 2022 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL) 1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the Order d…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd

Appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgments passed by the learned predecessor

ITA-291/2022HC Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: The Supreme Court. 2022:Dhc:3391-Db

…bunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos.1619/Del/2016 and 1727/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the ITAT has erred in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication vs. CIT reported in 374 ITR 118 (Del), as the Department has not accepted the decision passed in Sony Ericsson (supra) and has preferred an appeal against the said decision before the Supreme Court. 2022:DHC:3391-DB ITA 291/2022 Page 2 of 3 3. He also states that the ITAT has erred in holding that the Bright Line Test was not mandated in law and hence impermissible without co…

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2858/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

…distribution segment. 35.Without prejudice to the other grounds, erred in not reducing the amount of selling expenses from total AMP expenditure as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High court in case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd (374 ITR 118) and to only consider advertisement expenses for computing Amp expenditure and distribution segment. ITA no.1002&2858/Mum/2016 Diageo India Private Limited; A.Y. 11–12 36. without prejudice to the other grounds, erred in not reducing the amount of brand contribution from total AMP expenditure, while determining AMP/ Sales ratio of Assessee for be…

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1002/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

…distribution segment. 35.Without prejudice to the other grounds, erred in not reducing the amount of selling expenses from total AMP expenditure as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High court in case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd (374 ITR 118) and to only consider advertisement expenses for computing Amp expenditure and distribution segment. ITA no.1002&2858/Mum/2016 Diageo India Private Limited; A.Y. 11–12 36. without prejudice to the other grounds, erred in not reducing the amount of brand contribution from total AMP expenditure, while determining AMP/ Sales ratio of Assessee for be…

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…t Bright Line Test is not one of the prescribed methods under the transfer pricing provisions. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 374 ITR 118 (Delhi). Further, it was submitted by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited reported in 381 ITR 117 (Delhi) that Revenue needs to be established the existence of international transaction before undertaking benchmarking of AMP expenses and such transaction cannot be inferred me…