Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

114 ITD 448Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#783 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 366,470 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Stanley Electric Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 944/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 944/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Stanley Electric Engineering Tax, Circle-9(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 164, New Delhi Sector-5, Imt, Manesar, Gurgaon-122050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs5100F Co No. 115/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Stanley Electric Engineering Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 164, Tax, Circle-9(1), Sector-5, Imt, Manesar, New Delhi Gurgaon-122050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs5100F Assessee By : Sh. R. R. Maurya, Adv. & Sh. Bhuvan Mahajan, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.10.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi Dated 21.12.2011. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue: “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Allowing Working Capital Adjustment To The Assessee While Computing Its Arm’S Length Price 2 Co No. 115/Del/2014 Stanley Electric Engg. India Pvt. Ltd. Margin Even Though The Same Is Not Warranted On The Facts Of The Case & Despite The Assessee Not Even Asking For The Same Before The Tpo. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Rejecting One Of The Four Comparables Namely Sumi Motherson Innovative Engg. Ltd. On The Ground That It Has Very High Related Party Transaction Which Resulted In Relief Of Rs.32,73,326/- To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Sh. R. R. Maurya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr. DR

…ent of 76.70% of its sales. We also find that the ld. CIT (A) followed the decisions of ITAT Delhi Bench 'C' in the case of Global Logic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi [2011] 12 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) and Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Delhi). Since, the Related Party Transactions are to the extent of 76%, we hereby hold that it would not fit into the selection of objective comparables. Hence, we decline with the order of the ld. CIT (A). 6. In the Cross Objection, the assessee has taken up the issue of TPO making adjustments to the total revenue instead of international tran…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 781/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…s." We are in agreement with the findings of the earlier Bench (supra) that such a selected party should be least complex and should not be unique. (ii) Development Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 136 TTJ 129 & followed by Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 448/315 ITR 150 (Delhi): The issue before the Tribunal was that the CIT (A) had confirmed the adjustments to the international transactions of the assessee with its AEs based at Bahamas, USA without considering the submissions and the financial of the AEs explaining the facts etc. In case of the merits of the case for international transactions enter…

M/S. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 1782/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…s." We are in agreement with the findings of the earlier Bench (supra) that such a selected party should be least complex and should not be unique. (ii) Development Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 136 TTJ 129 & followed by Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 448/315 ITR 150 (Delhi): The issue before the Tribunal was that the CIT (A) had confirmed the adjustments to the international transactions of the assessee with its AEs based at Bahamas, USA without considering the submissions and the financial of the AEs explaining the facts etc. In case of the merits of the case for international transactions enter…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gran Electronics P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3518/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3518/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ Acit 3(1)(2) M/S. Gran Electronics R.No 607, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, C-171, Mittal Court, V. Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach0383A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh Assessee By : Shri. Mayank Chauhan & Shri. Bhupendra Karkhanis सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3518/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 27.01.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 10.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.3518/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Mayank Chauhan &For Respondent: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

…warranty agreement, hence, it was an ascertained liability The provision made was deductible I.T.A. No.3518/Mum/2017 even if the actual amount incurred was a little less than the provision. e) M/s Sony India (P) Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 118 TTJ 865 (Del) Wherein it was held that no addition can be made to the book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act in the case of provision for warranty expenses as the same constitute an ascertained liability. f) Indian Oil tanking Ltd, v. ITO, 10(3)(3), Mumbai [2009] 120 ITD 237. Wherein it was held that A.O. could not make addition of provision of performance w…