“bright line test”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C120 judgments

The decision most relied on for bright line test is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (374 ITR 118), cited in 499 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bright line test

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court

499

citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT

381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court

220

citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT

381 ITR 227 · 2016 · High Court

127

citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT

381 ITR 154 · 2016 · High Court

119

citing judgments

Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure incurred by an Indian entity directly benefits its own business and cannot be automatically treated as an international transaction for global brand building by associated enterprises without specific statutory provisions or proper analysis.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO

328 ITR 210 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

AMP expenditure is not an international transaction. The Bright Line Test is not a valid basis for determining the existence of an international transaction or computing the arm's length price.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

29 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

The 'bright line test' is not an appropriate method for determining the existence of an international transaction for calculating arm's length price. This ruling overrules prior special bench decisions on AMP expenses.

308 ITR 199 (Del) and CIT v. Spice Distribution Ltd.

374 ITR 30 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure on advertisement and sales promotion is generally treated as business expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer cannot treat revenue expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure as the Act does not have such a concept.

LG Electronics v. ACIT

22 ITR 1 · 2013 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Special Bench decision in LG Electronics v. ACIT affirmed the applicability of the 'Bright Line Test' for determining international transactions related to advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses.

Judgments citing bright line test

ACIT Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Rayban Sun Optics India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 7588/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Court." 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the ‘Bright Line Test’ was not mandated in law and hence impermissible without considering the fact that BLT was not used as a method to determined the price ... expenditure. Being of the view that the AMP expenditure enures benefit to the AE, the TPO proceeded to benchmark the transaction by applying Bright Line Test (BLT) method and suggested adjustment on protective basis in both the assessment years under dispute. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer incorporated

Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Tp 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 344/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd, Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, Pearl Tower, Plot No. 51, Tp 1(3)(1), Sector-32, Gurgaon-122003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecc5616R

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Bhaskar Goswami, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Markup @ 5.96% 18,47,031 Proposed adjustment on AMP 32,837,480 4. The issue before us narrows down as to “whether Bright Line Test is a prescribed method u/s 92C or not.” 5. On this issue, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 888/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

also the protective TP Adjustment made by the TPO amounting to Rs.2,05,31,96,324/- on account of AMP Expenses applying Bright line test. The Ground No. 39 is regarding deduction on account of education cess which has been not pressed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly ... Delhi) and CTT v. Salora International Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi). Accepting the parameters of the "bright line test" and if the said para meters and tests are applied to Indian companies with reputed brands and substantial AMP expenses would lead to difficulty and unforeseen tax implications and complications

Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2281/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 1967/Del/2017: Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-41(1), D-181, Okhla Industries Area, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack4816D

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

level. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AMP EXPENSES 18. The TPO bifurcated Advertizing & Market Promotion (AMP) expenses into routine and non-routine following the Bright Line Test (BLT) and held that the appellant was providing service to its AEs because its AMP expenses were excessive. The TPO applied a markup ... made an addition of account marketing intangibles developed by the appellant as a result of marketing expenditure on the basis of Bright Line Test (BLT) vide order under section 92CA(3). 19. Accordingly, the arm’s length price in respect of the international transaction relating to AMP services is calculated

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 1967/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2014/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

AO/Ld. TPO has erred in proposing a protective addition in respect of the AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant by application of Bright Line Test ("BLT"). In doing so, the Ld. TPO Ld. AO erred in: 3.1. not appreciating the fact that there are no legal sanctions under Indian ... regarding protective addition made by the A.O/TPO in respect of AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee by applying the of Bright Line Test. 13. The TPO was of the opinion that there is exist two International Transactions under purchase of finished goods and incurring of excessive AMP Expenses on behalf

Dy.CIT 7(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

ITA 2304/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ketan Ved, AR

Associated Enterprises Associated Enterprises and if any it was incidental. The Ld. TPO and if any it was incidental. The Ld. TPO applied bright line test (BLT) for making adjustment in respect of applied bright line test (BLT) for making adjustment in respect of applied bright line test

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 224/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

distribution expenditure to the additional function of promoting and developing the marketing intangibles of the AE by assessee in India by using bright line test. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that, this is not a recognised method under the trans-uprising regulation. IT(TP)A No.224/Bang/2021 Page ... rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT (LTU) v. Whirlpool of India Ltd., 381 ITR 154. The bright line test which was applied by the AO in the present case was also applied by the AO in the aforesaid cases. The bright line test

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.283/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Hp India Sales Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.24, Salarpuria Arena Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Hosur Main Road Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Arun Kumar, Cit(Tp)-2-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 28.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 13 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal Dated 22.06.2022. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing, Did Not Raise Any Specific Plea With Regard To Grounds 1 To 5, 10, 12 & 13 (Also Sub-Grounds), Hence, The Same Are Dismissed. The Surviving Grounds, Namely, Grounds 6 To 9, 11 & Its Sub-Grounds, Read As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Arun Kumar, CIT(TP)-2-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92B

trading activity by the Assessee is still at arm's length. 8.4 The learned DRP / AO/ TPO have erred in applying the Bright Line Test as a methodology to quantify the AMP service alleged to have been rendered by the Assessee to its AE despite the fact that ... Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 374 ITR 118 was followed and it was held that the bright line test followed by the Revenue in making the AMP TP adjustment cannot be accepted. In the present case also, no material is brought on record

M/S Alcon Laboratories India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3376/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 143(3)

distribution expenditure to the additional function of promoting and developing the marketing intangibles of the AE by assessee in India by using bright line test. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that, this is not a recognised method under the trans-uprising regulation. 9.4 The Ld.AR submitted that, there ... rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT (LTU) v. Whirlpool of India Ltd., 381 ITR 154. The bright line test which was applied by the AO in the present case was also applied by the AO in the aforesaid cases. The bright line test

Alcon Laboratories (India0 Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2889/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 143(3)

distribution expenditure to the additional function of promoting and developing the marketing intangibles of the AE by assessee in India by using bright line test. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that, this is not a recognised method under the trans-uprising regulation. 9.4 The Ld.AR submitted that, there ... rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT (LTU) v. Whirlpool of India Ltd., 381 ITR 154. The bright line test which was applied by the AO in the present case was also applied by the AO in the aforesaid cases. The bright line test

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 448/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 448/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige The Deputy Trade Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, Income Tax, High Grounds Circle – 2(1)(1), Sampangi Rama Bangalore. Vs. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 31/03/2022 Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92Section 92C

case of CIT Page 9 of 13 IT(TP)A No. 448/Bang/2022 (LTU) v. Whirlpool of India Ltd., 381 ITR 154. The bright line test which was applied by the AO in the present case was also applied by the AO in the aforesaid cases. The bright line test which ... difference in order to determine the value of such advertising, marketing and sales promotion expenditure incurred for the associated enterprise. Thus, the bright line test had been rejected as a valid method for either determining the existence of an international transaction or for the determination of the arm's length

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2858/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP was not justified in holding that the "Bright Line Test" was not mandated in law and hence impermissible without considering the fact that BLT was not used as a method to determine the price but only ... incurred excess AMP expenditure as compared to comparables and therefore AMP is held to be international transaction. That the TPO applied the bright line test to determine the existence of international transaction. That dispute resolution said that the reimbursement of expenses by the AE to the extent the benefit

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1002/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs CIT (ITA 110/2014 & ITA 710/2015). 1.20. The Honorable DRP, learned AO and TPO have erred in applying the Bright Line Test ("BLT") as methodology to quantify the AMP service alleged to have been rendered by the Appellant to its AE and not placed reliance ... Sales Private Limited. proceeded to make an adjustment of Rs.29,03,35,855 pertaining to Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses. Applying the Bright Line Test (BLT), the TPO computed AMP / sales ratio of the assessee at 1.17%. This was compared with similar ratio of comparables computed

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144(3)Section 92C

doing so, the Learned TPO erred in determining the non-routine AMP expenses by applying the bright line test, which is not one of the prescribed methods under section 92C of the Act and has been disallowed in various High Court Rulings. 3. The Learned AO / Learned ... rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT (LTU) v. Whirlpool of India Ltd., 381 ITR 154. The bright line test which was applied by the AO in the present case was also applied by the AO in the aforesaid cases. The bright line test

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. TPO has erred in changing the methodology of computation of ALP of AMP arbitrarily from Bright Line Test followed till AY 2012-13 altogether to purported Residual Profit Split Method, both of which are not notified methods and recognised methods under the Transfer

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144(3)Section 92C

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 219/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 219/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige Trade The Deputy Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, High Income Tax, Grounds Sampangi Rama Circle-2 (1)(1), Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed By The Ld.Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Essilor India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Eipl" Or The "Company" Or The "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

purely in the nature of selling expenses. 8. The learned AO/ TPO/ DRP has erred, in law and in fact by applying the Bright line test ("BLT") approach to determine excessive AMP or non-routine expenditure which is not in accordance with provisions of the Income ... rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT (LTU) v. Whirlpool of India Ltd., 381 ITR 154. The bright line test which was applied by the AO in the present case was also applied by the AO in the aforesaid cases. The bright line test