Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
Panasonic India Private Ltd.,Gurgaon vs Neac, New Delhi on 8 October, 2025 cites

M/S. Genus Electrotech Ltd.,, ... vs The Dy.Cit, Circle- 2(1)(1),, ... on 17 February, 2021

 Nokia India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi [IT Appeal nos. 178 & 242 (Delhi) of 2010]: The Hon‟ble Tribunal held that "incurring of high advertisement and marketing expenses by the assessee vis-a-vis the other comparable companies does not in any manner affect the determination of ALP under the RPM. When we consider gross profit in numerator and net sales in denominator, all the expenses debited to the Profit & loss account automatically stand excluded. It is but natural that only those expenses can have bearing on the gross profit that are debited to the Trading account. As the amount of advertisement and marketing expenses falls 'below the line' and finds its place in the Profit and loss account, the higher or lower spend on it cannot affect the amount of gross profit and the resultant ALP under the RPM. If the assessee has incurred more expenses on advertisement and promotion, which, in the opinion of the ld. DR went on to brand building for an AE, then, the transfer pricing adjustment on account of brand building for an AE, then, the transfer pricing adjustment on account of such AMP expenses was separately called for. Since the TPO has not made any separate adjustment on account of AMP expenses and has given Page | 9 effect to the same under TNMM, we hold that the incurring of such higher advertisement and marketing spend would not affect the calculation of ALP under the RPM. Ex consequenti, we hold that RPM prima facie appears to be the most appropriate method in the facts and circumstances of the instant case."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Topsgrup Service (I) Ltd. (Formerly ... vs Dcit - Circle -11(3)(1), Mumbai on 31 January, 2020

4.9. The Learned DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities and justified the rejection of RPM as the MAM on the ground that assessee in the instant case is not a routine distributor and it performs other functions too. He drew our attention to the specific observations made by the Learned TPO which had already been dealt hereinabove. We find that each of the observations of the Learned TPO had been duly met by the Learned AR as detailed supra. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned AR on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mattel Toys (I) (P) Ltd vs DCIT reported in 144 ITD 76 is very well founded and the ratio laid down thereon is directly applicable to the facts of the instant case. The relevant operative portion of the said Tribunal order is as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Acit, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. ... on 6 September, 2018

(Emphasis supplied)  Burberry India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT Circle 5(1) New Delhi [ITA No. 758/DEL/2017 & 7684/DEL/2017]: The Hon‟ble Tribunal held that "incurring of high advertisement and marketing expenses by the assessee vis-à-vis the other comparable companies does not in any manner affect the determination of ALP under the RPM". Further, the decision of Hon‟ble Tribunal was upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court vide IT Appeal No. 471 of 2019.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 79 - Cited by 60 - Full Document
1   2 Next