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

Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 9(1), Mumbai

ITA 5348/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5474/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Circle-9(1) Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Vs. Off Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50. Pan: Aaacg 1255 E आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5348/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Mumbai-400 050. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8376/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Bandra (W),Mumbai-50. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8758/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Dcit, Circle-9(1) Vs. M/S.Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 018. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Debashish Chandra Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal Bohra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal BohraFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra
Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/5474/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 DCIT, Circle-9(1) Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Vs. Off Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50. PAN: AAACG 1255 E आयकर अपील सं./ITA/5348/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-9(1) Mumbai-400 050. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-40002…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…Page 35 of 134 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. DCIT 114 ITD 448: 315 ITR 150 (Cal): 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…

Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range-8

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4784/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)
Section 92C

…al Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.), 7. CIT Vs. India Visit.Com (P) Ltd., 2019 CTR 603 (Del.), 8. Nestle India Vs. Dy. CIT, 11 TTJ 498 (Del.) 9. CIT Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd., ITA No. 59712014, dated 19.09.2014 (Delhi H.C.), 10. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del.), 11. CIT Vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 26 taxmann.com 133 (Del.), 12. CIT Vs. Monto Motors Ltd., [2012] 19 taxmann.com 57 (Del.), 13. CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Del.) 10.2 On the other hand, learned DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 10.3 We have heard the rival submissions and peruse…

Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range-8

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4783/DEL/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)
Section 92C

…al Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.), 7. CIT Vs. India Visit.Com (P) Ltd., 2019 CTR 603 (Del.), 8. Nestle India Vs. Dy. CIT, 11 TTJ 498 (Del.) 9. CIT Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd., ITA No. 59712014, dated 19.09.2014 (Delhi H.C.), 10. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del.), 11. CIT Vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 26 taxmann.com 133 (Del.), 12. CIT Vs. Monto Motors Ltd., [2012] 19 taxmann.com 57 (Del.), 13. CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Del.) 10.2 On the other hand, learned DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 10.3 We have heard the rival submissions and peruse…

DCIT Circle 8 (1) vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4780/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)
Section 92C

…al Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.), 7. CIT Vs. India Visit.Com (P) Ltd., 2019 CTR 603 (Del.), 8. Nestle India Vs. Dy. CIT, 11 TTJ 498 (Del.) 9. CIT Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd., ITA No. 59712014, dated 19.09.2014 (Delhi H.C.), 10. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del.), 11. CIT Vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 26 taxmann.com 133 (Del.), 12. CIT Vs. Monto Motors Ltd., [2012] 19 taxmann.com 57 (Del.), 13. CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Del.) 10.2 On the other hand, learned DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 10.3 We have heard the rival submissions and peruse…

DCIT Circle 8 (1) vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4779/DEL/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)
Section 92C

…al Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.), 7. CIT Vs. India Visit.Com (P) Ltd., 2019 CTR 603 (Del.), 8. Nestle India Vs. Dy. CIT, 11 TTJ 498 (Del.) 9. CIT Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd., ITA No. 59712014, dated 19.09.2014 (Delhi H.C.), 10. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del.), 11. CIT Vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 26 taxmann.com 133 (Del.), 12. CIT Vs. Monto Motors Ltd., [2012] 19 taxmann.com 57 (Del.), 13. CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Del.) 10.2 On the other hand, learned DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 10.3 We have heard the rival submissions and peruse…

International Merchandising Corporation, India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 222/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-222/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2004-05) International Merchandising Vs Ddit Corporation, India Branch Office Circle-1(2), Img House, 5Th Floor, Tower A, International Taxation Building 9, Dlf Phases-Iii, Cyber New Delhi City Gurgaon (Respondent) Aaac18025Q (Appellant) & I.T.A .No.-6449/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Dcit Vs International Merchandising Circle-1(2), Room No. 410, Corp. Drum Shaped Building, I.P. Estate Img Houses, 4Th Floor 268, New Delhi Masjid Moth, Uday Park (Appellant) New Delhi Aaaci8025Q (Respondent)

Section 195Section 40Section 92Section 92C(2)

…No. 5122/Del/2010 wherein it has been held that merely a company showing loss would not lose its status of comparable if other criteria depicted status of comparable. Same view has been taken by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Sony India Ltd. reported at 114 ITD 448. Thus this issue is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the calculations furnished by the Ld. A.R of the assessee and to be decided afresh in accordance with law. 22. In result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 30/10/2012 passed by Ld. CIT (A…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. International Merchandising Corp., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 6449/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: PendingITAT Delhi05 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-222/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2004-05) International Merchandising Vs Ddit Corporation, India Branch Office Circle-1(2), Img House, 5Th Floor, Tower A, International Taxation Building 9, Dlf Phases-Iii, Cyber New Delhi City Gurgaon (Respondent) Aaac18025Q (Appellant) & I.T.A .No.-6449/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Dcit Vs International Merchandising Circle-1(2), Room No. 410, Corp. Drum Shaped Building, I.P. Estate Img Houses, 4Th Floor 268, New Delhi Masjid Moth, Uday Park (Appellant) New Delhi Aaaci8025Q (Respondent)

Section 195Section 40Section 92Section 92C(2)

…No. 5122/Del/2010 wherein it has been held that merely a company showing loss would not lose its status of comparable if other criteria depicted status of comparable. Same view has been taken by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Sony India Ltd. reported at 114 ITD 448. Thus this issue is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the calculations furnished by the Ld. A.R of the assessee and to be decided afresh in accordance with law. 22. In result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 30/10/2012 passed by Ld. CIT (A…

ITO vs. M/S Citrix R&D India Private Limited

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and assessee’s

ITA 841/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan, S. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 10A

…turnover filter was very important and companies which had turnover of Rs. 1 to Rs. 200 Crore should be taken into consideration for the purpose of making TP study. 101. The Hon'ble Delhi Bench of ITAT has in the case of Sony India (P.) Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del) upheld the objection of assessee on inclusion of a comparable when the distinctive difference like size and turnover materially affected performance or prices of products. It was held in E-Gain Communication Private Limited (2008-TIOL-282-ITAT-Pune) that there was no justification for considering oversized companies and the Commissioner (Ap…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Telelogic India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 30/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…d. Then the issue that crops up is what should be the related party transaction ratio for excluding as comparable. This issue had come up before the Tribunal in numerous cases. The Delhi Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Del), held that the companies having relating party transactions of not exceeding 15% can be taken as a comparable. This ratio was followed by IT(TP)A No.22 & 30/B/2012 Page 19 of 21 the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the following decisions: i. Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2012] 28 taxmann.com 258 (Bang.): [2013] 140 ITD 344 (Bang.)…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M.S Sasken Communications Technologies Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1253/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1253 & 1254/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years - 2005-05 & 2006-07) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-12(3), Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. M/S Sasken Communication Tech. Ltd., No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Bangalore. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri PK Srihari, Adl. CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…t to the business contract with the client. Therefore, the compensation received for termination of the contract is eligible for deduction u/s 10A. The learned AR has relied upon the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 114 ITD 448 as well as the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of 3i Infotech Ltd., Vs. ACIT in ITA No.3354 and 3355 of 2010 dated 21/8/2013. ITA Nos.1253 & 1254/B/14 CO Nos.32 & 33/B/15 8 9. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect of the compensation received on account of terminatio…