Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications v. CIT

276 CTR 97High Court#17560 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

service pe most appropriate method arm's length price transfer pricing adjustment tnmm section 92ca associated enterprise section 92 international transaction section 234b final assessment order draft assessment order

Judgments citing Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications v. CIT

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…eld similarly in the following decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court:  Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT: [2021] 431 ITR 483 (Del)  Vedanta Limited vs ACIT, order dated 19.09.2022 in ITA 63/2021 (Del.)  Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications vs CIT: 276 CTR 97 (Del.) In similar circumstances, other Hon’ble High Courts have in the following decisions disapproved the approach of the Tribunal in remanding the matter to the lower authorities when all evidences and documents were available on records:  CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd.: 223 Taxman 157 (Guj.)  Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant vs. ACIT: 317 ITR 433 (Bom.)  Co…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

EPSON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ULSOOR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 206/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 206/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Epson India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 12Th Floor, The Milenia, Commissioner Of Tower A, Income Tax, No. 1,Murphy Road, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Pan: Aaace7858F Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Honourable Drp-1

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

…ar Data OP/OC 35th percentile 3.15 12.99 Median 5.00 17.75 65th percentile 5.85 20.94 2.5 Assessee in reply relied on the following decisions  Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of M/s. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 276 CTR 97 (2015)  M/s. Maruthi Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 110/2014 and ITA 710/2015,  CIT Vs Whirlpool of India Ltd. (129DTR169),  Baush & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (129DTR201)  Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO (ITA No. 349/2015 dtd. 13/01/2016) and Honda Seil Products. 2.6 The Ld.TPO after considering the submissions of…

SENNHEISER ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7574/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2013-14] M/S Sennheiser Electronics India Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T 102-A, First Floor, Time Tower Circle – 4(1) M.G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon Pan : Aakcs 4629 Q [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…orce in the contention of the ld. DR because the TPO, while framing the order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act was well aware with the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Soni Ericcson Mobile Communication India Pvt Ltd reported at 276 CTR 97, and therefore, it cannot be said that the TPO was not aware that the Bright Line test has been discarded by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Relevant observations of the TPO are at page 8 of his order. It was only on the basis of Bright Line test that the impugned ALP adjustment was made, but that approach has already been negatived by the Hon'bl…

LOUIS VUITTON INDIA RETAIL PVT. LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 980/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2012-13 Louis Vuitton India Retail Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 901-A, Ninth Floor, Time Tower, Circle-2, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon. Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aaacl8230E)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Sahni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

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

…RP had the benefit of the various judgments of the Hon’ble High Court on the issue and, therefore, the issue be adjudicated by the ITAT itself. 3.1 The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments/orders in the Vs. CIT of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in 276 CTR 97 I.T.A. No. 980/Del/2017 Assessment Year 2012-13 (Del), Toshiba India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT of ITAT Delhi reported in 2015- TII-191 – ITAT – DEL – TP, Zimmer India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT of ITAT Delhi reported in 2015 – TII- 222- ITAT- DEL- TP, Baush & Lomb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT of ITAT Delhi reported in 2015- TII- 244- ITAT- DEL- TP, Casio India Co…