Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.31 seconds)

India Medtronic P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit (Osd) 8(2), Mumbai on 24 July, 2019

India Medtronic Vs. DCIT-10(1)(1), Mumbai (ITA No. 1600/Mum/2015, dated 17.01.2018), reveals that the Tribunal had observed viz. (i) that, in the agreements between the assessee and its AE there was no condition of sharing of AMP; (ii) that, the agreements only referred to using best efforts to distribute the products or promote products in a commercially reasonable manner; and (iii) that, the terms of the agreement did not provide that the assessee had to share AMP expenses; (iv) that, even if the AE was benefitted indirectly by the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee, it could not be inferred that it had entered into an agreement for P a g e | 15 ITA Nos.1997/Mum/2018 &ITA No.2168/Mum/2014 & C.O. No.213/Mum/2014 (Arising out of ITA No. 2121/Mum/2014) ITA No. 2121/Mum/2014 & AY. 2009-10 sharing AMP expenses; and (v) that, the „Bright Line Test‟ should not have been applied by the TPO. We find that the Tribunal after relying on its earlier order in the case of Thomas Cook India Ltd. (ITA No. 1261 & 1238/Mum/2015, dated 31.05.2016), had therein decided the issue in favour of the assessee, observing as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1