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

Also reported as

118 TTJ 865

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151Section 37(1)Section 80IC

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituresection 92batrue and full disclosurecaptive service providersanction under section 151transfer pricing orderworking capital adjustmentfresh tangible materialsection 148(2)sanctioning authorityspecified domestic transactiontested party

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

Infac India Pvt. Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly

ITA 3195/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3195/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri. Sankara Narayana, S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, JCIT
Section 144C(13)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3195/CHNY/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2013-2014 Infac India Pvt Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.113, Eillaiamman Koil Income Tax, Street, Padappai, Corporate Circle 2(2) Kanchipuram Dist. 601 301 Chennai 600 034. [PAN AADCS 4890C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by :…

M/S Marvell India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2173/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani /For Respondent: Shri C. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2013-14 M/s. Marvell India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant RMZ Ecoworld, Commissioner of Income- 3rd Floor, East Wing, Building 8A, Vs. tax, Marathahalli – Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Circle – 4 (1) (2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. PAN: AAECM5559R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Mukesh Butani / Shri Shreyash Shah, Advocate Respondent by : Shri C. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 28.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 06.04.2018 O R D E R…

Starent Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 164/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.164/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Starent Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.P-17, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aaacn5937G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 6, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT
Section 10ASection 144C(13)Section 271

…ed Micro Circuits India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1250/PUN/2015 along with CO No.43/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2010-11, order dated 24.11.2017, wherein the principle laid down by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 114 ITD 448, has been applied. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in the business of software development and exports. The assessee was a subsidiary of Starent Networks Corporation (SNC), USA. It had exported software services to SNC. The assessee also owned three separa…

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2028/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : CHENNAI [Before Hon’ble Shri NRS Ganesan, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/CHNY/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-I(3), Chennai [PAN: AAACC1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri S. Sundararaman, CA For the Revenue : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT Date of Hearing : 17.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These appeals by the Assessee arise out of the common orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5…

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle I(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2027/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : CHENNAI [Before Hon’ble Shri NRS Ganesan, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/CHNY/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-I(3), Chennai [PAN: AAACC1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri S. Sundararaman, CA For the Revenue : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT Date of Hearing : 17.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These appeals by the Assessee arise out of the common orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5…

Hyundai Rotem Company, Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 510/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate and Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92C

…each comparable as has been held by the coordinate Bench ‘A’, Pune Bench of the Tribunal in case of Honeywell Turbo Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.2584/PUN/2012 order dated 10.02.2017 by following the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. cited as 114 ITD 448 by making following observation :- 13 “33. Further, the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 114 ITD 448 has allowed 20% risk adjustment considering the fact that it may not be possible to quantify risk adjustments. The assessee applying the said ratio in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has worked out…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Outsource Partners International Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III
Section 10ASection 92C(3)Section 92D

…not be regarded to be comparable to the Assessee company and accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of CIT(A) while he excluded this company on the turnover criteria following the decision of this tribunal in : Sony India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 114 ITD 448 Delhi, E-Gain Communication, 2008 TIOL 282 ITAT (Pune) Deloittee Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.1082/Hyd/2010 Genisys Integrating System (India)(P.) Ltd. vs DCIT, 53 Sot 159 (Bang)" 6. The said findings of the Tribunal in respect of the said three Companies are on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record. We find no infirmity…

Outsourcepartners International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 443/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III
Section 10ASection 92C(3)Section 92D

…not be regarded to be comparable to the Assessee company and accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of CIT(A) while he excluded this company on the turnover criteria following the decision of this tribunal in : Sony India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 114 ITD 448 Delhi, E-Gain Communication, 2008 TIOL 282 ITAT (Pune) Deloittee Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.1082/Hyd/2010 Genisys Integrating System (India)(P.) Ltd. vs DCIT, 53 Sot 159 (Bang)" 6. The said findings of the Tribunal in respect of the said three Companies are on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record. We find no infirmity…

M/S.Microobjects P. Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 470/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm M/S. Microobjects Private Limited, Vs The Asst. Commr Of Income Tax 41/1098B, Pullepady Cross Road, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi. Kochi-682018. ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(4)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ot be regarded to be comparable to the Assessee company and accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of CIT(A) while he excluded this company on the turnover criteria following the decision of this Tribunal in; 5 Sony India(P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Delhi) E-Gain Communication, 2008 TiOL 282 ITAT (Pune) Deloitee Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT : ITA No.1082/Hyd/2010. Genisys Integrating System (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT : 53 SOT 159 (Bang)” 6.1 Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agnity india Technologies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 262 CTR (Del) 291 had held that…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Kail Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5716/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunathan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningeshen
Section 14A

…hese requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in present though it will be discharged at a future date. Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [118 TTJ 865] 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 ascertain liability. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of IBM India Ltd. v. CIT(A) [105 ITD 1] wherein it was held that the li…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Kali Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1855/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunathan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningeshen
Section 14A

…hese requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in present though it will be discharged at a future date. Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [118 TTJ 865] 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 ascertain liability. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of IBM India Ltd. v. CIT(A) [105 ITD 1] wherein it was held that the li…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Kali Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4415/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunathan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningeshen
Section 14A

…hese requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in present though it will be discharged at a future date. Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [118 TTJ 865] 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 ascertain liability. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of IBM India Ltd. v. CIT(A) [105 ITD 1] wherein it was held that the li…

D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

ITA 1681/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…of TPO that delayed payment beyond 30 days are in the nature of loan advanced to AEs is alleged and erroneous in nature. Appellant has placed reliance on: Lindas India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT - 3(2) Mumbai (ITA No. 2024/Mum/2007 Sony India Private Limited (2008) 114 ITD 448 Abhishek Auto Industries Limited (2010) (136 TTJ 530) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited (2012) (345 ITR 241) 9. The Appellant follows a consistent policy with respect to the receivables and payables from/ to the AEs. Accordingly, no interest is charged or paid by the Appellant with respect to outstanding payable/ receivable with AEs. The average…

M/S D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

ITA 75/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…of TPO that delayed payment beyond 30 days are in the nature of loan advanced to AEs is alleged and erroneous in nature. Appellant has placed reliance on: Lindas India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT - 3(2) Mumbai (ITA No. 2024/Mum/2007 Sony India Private Limited (2008) 114 ITD 448 Abhishek Auto Industries Limited (2010) (136 TTJ 530) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited (2012) (345 ITR 241) 9. The Appellant follows a consistent policy with respect to the receivables and payables from/ to the AEs. Accordingly, no interest is charged or paid by the Appellant with respect to outstanding payable/ receivable with AEs. The average…

D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

ITA 1018/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…of TPO that delayed payment beyond 30 days are in the nature of loan advanced to AEs is alleged and erroneous in nature. Appellant has placed reliance on: Lindas India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT - 3(2) Mumbai (ITA No. 2024/Mum/2007 Sony India Private Limited (2008) 114 ITD 448 Abhishek Auto Industries Limited (2010) (136 TTJ 530) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited (2012) (345 ITR 241) 9. The Appellant follows a consistent policy with respect to the receivables and payables from/ to the AEs. Accordingly, no interest is charged or paid by the Appellant with respect to outstanding payable/ receivable with AEs. The average…

Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6082/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sharma and Anubhav Rustogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…isallowance of Rs.60,72,481/- being 10% of the advertisement and business promotion expenses by treating the same to be capital in nature providing enduring benefit to the company. Despite the fact that in case of Sony India Private Limited vs. ACIT cited as 114 ITD 448 (Del.), coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has deleted similar disallowances on the ground that expenditure incurred by the assessee company on advertisement and sales promotion has not resulted in accrual of 14 any advantage of enduring nature and the same are in the nature of Revenue field and not in the capital field so as to treat the same as…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Segram India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3811/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…ction of 5 percent from arithmetic mean to arrive at the arm’s length price as per provisions of the proviso to section 92C(2). 2.5 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the jurisdictional Tribunals judgment in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (114 ITD 448) (Del.) and that of the Bangalore tribunal in the case of Philips Software Vs. ACIT (119 TTJ 721) for allowing the 5% variation 2 I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 adjustment. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,025,050 being provision for t…

Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra,Adv.,Harpreet Singh, Adv., Anmol Anand, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR, B. Ramanjaneyulu, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…ction of 5 percent from arithmetic mean to arrive at the arm’s length price as per provisions of the proviso to section 92C(2). 2.5 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the jurisdictional Tribunals judgment in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (114 ITD 448) (Del.) and that of the Bangalore tribunal in the case of Philips Software Vs. ACIT (119 TTJ 721) for allowing the 5% variation 2 I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 adjustment. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,025,050 being provision for t…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2770/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…ction of 5 percent from arithmetic mean to arrive at the arm’s length price as per provisions of the proviso to section 92C(2). 2.5 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the jurisdictional Tribunals judgment in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (114 ITD 448) (Del.) and that of the Bangalore tribunal in the case of Philips Software Vs. ACIT (119 TTJ 721) for allowing the 5% variation 2 I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 adjustment. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,025,050 being provision for t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Pernod Ricard (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 2530/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…ction of 5 percent from arithmetic mean to arrive at the arm’s length price as per provisions of the proviso to section 92C(2). 2.5 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the jurisdictional Tribunals judgment in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (114 ITD 448) (Del.) and that of the Bangalore tribunal in the case of Philips Software Vs. ACIT (119 TTJ 721) for allowing the 5% variation 2 I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 adjustment. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,025,050 being provision for t…