Louis Vuitton India Retail Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit, Gurgaon on 6 October, 2017
In this regard, it is noted that there are at
least three later judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court,
referred to above, viz., Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd. Vs. CIT
(order dated 14.9.2016), Pr. CIT VS. Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd.
(order dated 16.8.2016) and Pr. CIT VS. Bose Corporation (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (order dated 23.8.2016) in all of which similar issue has
been restored for fresh determination in the light of the earlier
judgment in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt.
Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the contention of the Ld. AR, claiming
departure from the earlier year, on this score, is not tenable.
Therefore, in light of the non-sustainability of the objections
taken by the Ld. AR and following the earlier view taken by the
ITAT in assessment year 2010-11 in the case of the assessee, we
set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of
TPO/AO for a fresh determination of the question as to whether
16
I.T.A. No. 980/Del/2017
Assessment Year 2012-13
there exists an international transaction of AMP expenses. If the
existence of such an international transaction is not proved, the
matter will end there and then, calling for no transfer pricing
addition. If, on the other hand, the international transaction is
found to be existing, then the TPO will determine the ALP of
such an international transaction in the light of the relevant
judicial position, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the assessee.