Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Sesa Goa Ltd. v. Jt. CIT 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1546 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Tata Steel Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 8357 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. 2019 TaxPub(DT) 5399 (Pune-Trib)
REFERRED Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. v. ACIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 4966 (Pune-Trib)
REFERRED Cyber India Online Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 4706 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED ITC Ltd. v. ACIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 3060 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED LOreal India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1733 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED K. Rajiv v. Addl. CIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6014 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. v. JCIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5619 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4884 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1277 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Lever India Exports Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0590 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Triune Energy Services (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2016 TaxPub(DT) 0628 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Thyssenkrupp Elevator (India) (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 0010 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2457 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2761 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2430 (SC)
REFERRED Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1638 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED V.I.S.P. (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. 2004 TaxPub(DT) 0776 (MP-HC)
REFERRED Indian Woollen Carpet Factory v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors. 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0343 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty 1981 TaxPub(DT) 0902 (SC)
 
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3429 (Mum-Trib) : (2020) 082 ITR (Trib) 0595

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 92B

In the absence of any 'understanding' or an 'arrangement' or 'action in concert' as per which assessee had agreed for incurring of AMP expenses for brand building of its AE and, AMP expenses incurred by assessee could not be treated as international transaction under section 92B.

Transfer pricing - International transaction - AMP expenses - Absence of any understanding, arrangement, etc., between assessee and AE with respect to AMP expenditure incurred by assessee

Assessee-company engaged in manufacturing of cosmetic, marketing and sale of product, incurred huge expenses on advertising and marketing and promotion (AMP). TPO took the view that assessee being not legal owner of brand in India, by way of huge AMP expenses contributing for development of brand of brand owned by AE abroad and, therefore, same constituted international transaction calling for TP adjustment.Held: TPO failed to discharge onus cast upon him as regards providing that there was any 'understanding' or an 'arrangement' or 'action in concert' as per which wassessee had agreed for incurring of AMP expenses for brand building of its AE and, therefore, AMP expenses incurred by assessee could not be treated as international transaction under section 92B.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2015-16


INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 253(4)

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

OR Try Reload the Page