← All Phrases

bright line test

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C120 judgments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. DORMAKABA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

ITA 3299/CHNY/2024[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3299/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. Dormakaba India Private Limited, Plot No.48/3, Mahindra World City, 8Th Avenue, Anjur Village, Paranur Anjur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District – 603 002. [Pan:Aaacd-3980-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Saddik Ahmed, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 30.09.2024, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 1(1), Chennai (In Short “Ao”) U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘The Act') For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Dated 01.03.2022. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Saddik Ahmed, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 92B

and/or disallowing the excess AMP expense. Accordingly, we hold that there is no requirement to disallow the excess AMP expense. Therefore, Bright Line Test of AMP expenses per se cannot be considered as an independent international transaction. Further, we also note that once the all the expenses are tested under

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 22(2), , DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

making 'intensity adjustment' to adjust net 3 profit margin of comparable companies purportedly to equalise functions. 'Intensity adjustment' is mirror image of Bright Line Test (BLT) both are already invalidated by Hon'ble Courts. 7. Without prejudice to all other grounds, impugned order errs in quantifying AMP expense of appellant ... import of finished goods. Protective Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of international transaction for Marketing and Market Development functions ("MMDF") based on Bright Line Test ("BLT") approach In law and facts of present case: 4 15. Impugned order errs in retaining protective assessment based on BLT Contrary

Showing 120 of 120 · Page 1 of 6

bright line test — 120 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax