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 (374 ITR 118)

Q: 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.

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.

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 409/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. D.C.I.T., Lambda House, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Opp. Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad-382481. Pan: Aaacl4089R

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsingh B ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 2Section 234ASection 271Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.91/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. D.C.I.T., Lambda House, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Opp. Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad-382481. PAN: AAACL4089R And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 409/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 A.C.I.T., Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Vs. Lambda Hous…

Alcon Laboratories India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 726/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant”), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of 11th Floor, RMZ Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. PAN: AACCA3430F APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee by Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT Revenue by (DR) Date of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Prese…

Epson India Private Limited, Ulsoor vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

…en disputed by the TPO in his order. (ii) The assessee is procuring finished products from its AE and distributing them in India under the brand name of the AE. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Sony Ericsson mobile communication India Private Limited 55 Taxmann.com 240 (Delhi) has held that the workings of section 92F and that Rule 10A explicitly states that the term transaction includes a number of closely linked to transaction thus making it clear that it was never the intent of the Legislature to abandon the general principles of IT(IT)A No.205/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 12 plurality. Therefore the contenti…

Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. Natioanl E- Assessment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 804/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. National E-Assessment 1St Floor, Elegance Tower, Centre, Plot No.8, Non Heirarchial New Delhi. Commercial Centre, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Kumar Garg, Advocate Ms Bhavya Garg, Ca & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th April, 2021 Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3)/144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The It Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Amway Corporation Engaged In The Business Of Direct Selling Of Consumer Products. It Sells Its Products Through Multi-Level Marketing (Mlm). Mlm Marketing Allows Direct Sellers To Build A Business Through Their Own Sales Efforts & Inviting Others To Become Direct Sellers. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.11.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.113,69,23,009/-. Since The Assessee Had Entered Into Certain International Transactions With Its Ae, The Ao Referred The Matter To The Tpo For Determination Of The Alp Of The International Transaction Entered Into By It.

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Kumar Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

…He, therefore, inferred that the AMP activity is generating significant marketing intangible assets for the AEs. The TPO, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 374 ITR 118 and held that the CP method is a recognized and 3 accepted method under Indian transfer pricing regulation. It can be applied by the AO/TPO in case of AMP expenses are treated as a separate international transaction provided, CP Method is the most appropriate and reliable method. He, therefore, decided to adopt a segregation approach holding CP M…

M/S Lenovo India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2833/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

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

…remanded the issue on AMP back to the Ld.TPO to verify the net operating margin earned by assessee with respect to the trading segment. The Ld.AR submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 374 ITR 118 (Del) on an identical issue has observed as under: “101. However, once the Assessing Officer/TPO accepts and adopts TNM Method, but then chooses to treat a particular expenditure like AMP as a separate international transaction without bifurcation/segregation, it would as noticed above, lead to unusual and incongruous results as AMP expenses is t…

DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Diesel Fashion India Reliance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly it is to be dismissed as such

ITA 2931/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

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…

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

…e authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 15. We refer to para 101 of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P. Ltd. v. CIT, 374 ITR 118 wherein the Hon'ble Court held that, once the TPO accepts and adopts TNM Method and then chooses to treat a particular expenditure like AMP as a separate international transaction without bifurcation and segregation, it would lead to an unusual and incongruous results as AMP is the cost or expense and is not diverse. It is factored in the net pro…

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 4, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1016/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner of Arcade, Income-tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. PAN: AAACI4403L APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(TP)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner of Arcade, Income-tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore.…

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 625/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner of Arcade, Income-tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. PAN: AAACI4403L APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(TP)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner of Arcade, Income-tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore.…

Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 309/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 309/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2016-17 Cisco Systems Capital Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of (India) Private Limited, Income Tax, Brigade South Parade, Circle 2(1)(1), No.10, M G Road, Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN: AACCC 4552A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajan Vora, CA Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 11.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accoun…