Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)Section 92B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Randox Laboratories (India) Private ... vs Dcit, Bangalore on 17 July, 2019
Therefore, for substantial question and cause, necessarily, the matter
needs fresh verification by the A.O., especially in the light of the recent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Apex
Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra). For the aforesaid purpose, the
issues is remitted back to the AO to examine the details submitted in
the light of the decision of the Apex Court after giving an opportunity
of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs Addl. Cit, New Delhi on 17 October, 2018
This decision was however overruled in Maruti Suzuki
India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 121 (SC) wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court left the question whether AMP expenses
gives raise to international transaction or not open with the
following observations:
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (Earlier Known ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi on 7 February, 2020
In the case of Maruti Suzuki (supra), the facts were Maruti
Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) was engaged in the manufacture of
passenger cars in India. It was a subsidiary of SMC, a Japanese
company. MSIL started its business in 1982 as a Government of
India owned company. SMC was selected as the business partner
independently by MSIL. The co-branded trade mark "Maruti-
Suzuki" was used since the inception of MSIL. A licence agreement
was entered into between MSIL and SMC in October 1982 for its
models M-800, Omni and Gypsy. By the agreement, MSIL was
permitted to use the co-branded trade mark "Maruti- Suzuki" on the
vehicles. In the assessment of MSIL for assessment year 2005-06,
the AO invoked the provisions of section 92CA(1) of the Act and
referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of
the arm's length price in relation to the international transactions
undertaken by MSIL with its associated enterprise, SMC. The
IT(TP)A No.535/Bang/2022
Page 13 of 31
Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order making an adjustment of
Rs. 154.12 crores towards the advertisement, marketing and sales
promotion expenses imputing a notional arm's length compensation
towards the advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses
incurred by MSIL for SMC. On the above facts, the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court held as follows:
Global Logic India Limited, Delhi vs Dcit Tpo-2(1)(1), Delhi on 23 November, 2022
7.4 On perusal of the order of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal and
on perusal of the financial statements of Infobeans Technologies Ltd.,
we observe that the company is functionally not comparable and no
segmental details are available. Therefore, the coordinate bench did not
consider this company as comparable in assessee's own case for AYs
2014-15 & 2015-16. Respectfully following the decision of the
coordinate bench, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude this company from
the final list of comparables." IT(TP)A No.261/Bang/2021 NTT Data
FA Insurance Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 21 of 37
18.1 Same view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Global Logic
India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in (2022) 134 Taxmann.com 35 for
the assessment year 2016-17. Respectfully following above judgement,
we are inclined to direct the AO/TPO to exclude this company from the
list of comparables."