Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

114 ITD 448Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#786 most cited

What is Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

For transfer pricing purposes, functionally dissimilar entities that have significant business differences must be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking analysis. It also provides guidance on the non-allocation of advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses to other entities when incurred solely for the assessee's business.

131

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT · 114 ITD 448 · transfer pricing · comparables exclusion · functional dissimilarity · benchmarking analysis · AMP expenses · allocation of AMP expenditure · section 92BA · working capital adjustment · section 37(1) · associated enterprises

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…m 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd V. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del) - Sony India (1) Laf v. Dy. CIT: 114 ITD 448 (Del) - Star India (P) LAL. 103 ITD 73 TM (Mum) - National Panasonic (India) Lal. v. JCIT: ITA No. 3238/Del/2002 - Samsung Indor: ITA Nos. 1360 & 3374/Del/2002 - DCIT v. Manti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.: ITA Nos. 2181 to 2183/Del/2010 For the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that since the entire AMP expenses were incurred by…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…m 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd V. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del) - Sony India (1) Laf v. Dy. CIT: 114 ITD 448 (Del) - Star India (P) LAL. 103 ITD 73 TM (Mum) - National Panasonic (India) Lal. v. JCIT: ITA No. 3238/Del/2002 - Samsung Indor: ITA Nos. 1360 & 3374/Del/2002 - DCIT v. Manti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.: ITA Nos. 2181 to 2183/Del/2010 For the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that since the entire AMP expenses were incurred by…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…m 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd V. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del) - Sony India (1) Laf v. Dy. CIT: 114 ITD 448 (Del) - Star India (P) LAL. 103 ITD 73 TM (Mum) - National Panasonic (India) Lal. v. JCIT: ITA No. 3238/Del/2002 - Samsung Indor: ITA Nos. 1360 & 3374/Del/2002 - DCIT v. Manti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.: ITA Nos. 2181 to 2183/Del/2010 For the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that since the entire AMP expenses were incurred by…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…m 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd V. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del) - Sony India (1) Laf v. Dy. CIT: 114 ITD 448 (Del) - Star India (P) LAL. 103 ITD 73 TM (Mum) - National Panasonic (India) Lal. v. JCIT: ITA No. 3238/Del/2002 - Samsung Indor: ITA Nos. 1360 & 3374/Del/2002 - DCIT v. Manti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.: ITA Nos. 2181 to 2183/Del/2010 For the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that since the entire AMP expenses were incurred by…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…m 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd V. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del) - Sony India (1) Laf v. Dy. CIT: 114 ITD 448 (Del) - Star India (P) LAL. 103 ITD 73 TM (Mum) - National Panasonic (India) Lal. v. JCIT: ITA No. 3238/Del/2002 - Samsung Indor: ITA Nos. 1360 & 3374/Del/2002 - DCIT v. Manti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.: ITA Nos. 2181 to 2183/Del/2010 For the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that since the entire AMP expenses were incurred by…

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…m 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd V. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del) - Sony India (1) Laf v. Dy. CIT: 114 ITD 448 (Del) - Star India (P) LAL. 103 ITD 73 TM (Mum) - National Panasonic (India) Lal. v. JCIT: ITA No. 3238/Del/2002 - Samsung Indor: ITA Nos. 1360 & 3374/Del/2002 - DCIT v. Manti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.: ITA Nos. 2181 to 2183/Del/2010 For the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that since the entire AMP expenses were incurred by…

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…m 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd V. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del) - Sony India (1) Laf v. Dy. CIT: 114 ITD 448 (Del) - Star India (P) LAL. 103 ITD 73 TM (Mum) - National Panasonic (India) Lal. v. JCIT: ITA No. 3238/Del/2002 - Samsung Indor: ITA Nos. 1360 & 3374/Del/2002 - DCIT v. Manti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.: ITA Nos. 2181 to 2183/Del/2010 For the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that since the entire AMP expenses were incurred by…

M/S EMERSON AUTOMATION SOLUTIONS INTELLIGENT PLATFORMS PVT. LTD,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, C-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the Ground Nos

ITA 9/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedm/S Emersion Automation Solutios The Deputy Commissioner Intelligent Platforms Private Limited Of Income Tax, Circle- (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent 3(1)(2), Bmtc Building, Platforms Private Limited), Velankani Vs. Koramangala, Bangalore Tech Park, Building 9, First Floor, 43 Hosur Road, Bangalore-560100 Pan – Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. Rishabh Malhotra, Advocates Revenue By: Sri. Subramanian. S, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav,J.M. Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Ao / Drp Dated 30Th October, 2018. The Assessee Has Raised 19 Grounds Of Appeal Out Of Which Ground Nos. 1 To 5 Are General In Nature & Hence Not Required Specific Adjudication. Ground No. 6 Related To The Grievance Of The Assessee With Respect To The Adjustment Of Custom Duty, Base Cost, Working Capital Not Granted By The Ao While Completing The Assessment. Ground No. 7 Is With Respect To The Applicability Of Tnmm Method Instead Of Rpm Method Applied By The Assessee For Its Trading Segment Transactions. Ground Nos. 8, 9 & 10 Are Related To The Rejection Of Comparability Analysis Conducted By The Tpo As Affirmed By The Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 11 Is With Respect To The Adjustment Of Working Capital Denied By Tpo Affirmed By Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 12 Is With Respect To The Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation & Ground Nos. 13 & 14 Is With Respect To The Payments Made To Headquarters In Lieu Of Services Obtained By Applying

For Appellant: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. RishabhFor Respondent: Sri. Subramanian. S, JCIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 271(1)(b)Section 5

…g price of the product which hardly leaves any scope for adjustment to the profit margin of the comparables on this issue. The above stand of revenue is upheld by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT DELHI in the case of M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Delhi) in 4 M/s Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms P. Ltd. support of the proposition that Customs Duty Adjustment should not be allowed. The same is reproduced below for reference: As regards the taxpayer's claim for adjustment to the operating margins of the comparables on account of higher amount of custom duty paid on importe…

M/S. SUCCESS FACTORS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA
Section 3(1)(b)

…be excluded. The hon'ble 1TAT has suggested that the classification made by Dun & Bradstreet should be taken into consideration for the purpose of making the TP study. 126. The Hon'ble Delhi Bench of ITAT has in the case of Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del) upheld the objection of assessee on inclusion of a comparable when the distinctive differences like size and turnover. materially affect performance or prices of products. It has been held in E-Gain Communication Private Limited (2008-TIOL-282-ITAT-Pune) that there is no justification for considering oversized companies anci the Commissione…

Showing 120 of 131 · Page 1 of 7