Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant


Download 0.58 Mb.
NameSony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant
page1/11
A typeDocumentation
manual-guide.com > manual > Documentation
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11
AIT-2015-26-HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA No. 16/2014
Reserved on: 5th November, 2014

Date of Decision: 16th March, 2015
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) ...Appellant

Through Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Chopra and Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates.
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax – III …Respondent

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
AIT Head Note: 1. Whether the additions suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of Advertising/Marketing and Promotion Expenses (‘AMP Expenses‘ for short) was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law as no specific reference was made by the Assessing Officer, having regard to retrospective amendment to Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 2012.

2. Whether AMP Expenses incurred by the assessee in India can be treated and categorized as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances?

4. If answer to question Nos.2 and 3 is in favour of the Revenue, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that transfer pricing adjustment in respect of AMP Expenses should be computed by applying Cost Plus Method.
5. Whether the ITAT was right in directing that fresh bench marking/comparability analysis should be undertaken by the Transfer Pricing Officer by applying the parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India (P) Ltd.?
Whether the ITAT was right in distinguishing and directing that selling expenses in the nature of trade/volume discounts, rebates and commission paid to retailers/dealers etc. cannot be included in the AMP Expenses?
Whether ITAT was right in setting aside/deleting transfer pricing adjustment made on account of payment of royalty to an associated enterprise?


ITA No. 70/2014
Discovery Communications India ..Appellant

Through Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Taran Deep Singh, Mr. Mayank Nagi, Mr. Tarun Singh, Ms. Husnal Syali & Mr. Harkunal Singh, Advocates.
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
ITA No. 92/2014
Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
ITA No. 93/2014
Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
ITA No. 99/2014
Haier Appliances (India) P. Ltd. ....Appellant

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
ITA No. 100/2014
Haier Appliances (India) P. Ltd. ....Appellant

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
ITA No. 101/2014
Haier Appliances (India) P. Ltd. ....Appellant

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
ITA No. 109/2014
Reebok India Company Ltd. ....Appellant

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
Versus
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
ITA No. 132/2014
Commissioner of Income Tax …Appellant

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
Versus
Canon India Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
ITA No. 155/2014
Commissioner of Income Tax -III …Appellant

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
Versus
Sony Mobile Communication India Pvt.Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) .. Respondent

Through Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Chopra and Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates.
ITA No. 213/2014
Commissioner of Income Tax -V …Appellant

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
Versus
Reebok India Co. Ltd. .... Respondent

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
ITA No. 214/2014
Commissioner of Income Tax -IV …Appellant

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
Versus
Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondent

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
ITA No. 215/2014
Commissioner of Income Tax -IV …Appellant

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
Versus
Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondent

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates

ITA No. 218/2014
Commissioner of Income Tax -IV …Appellant

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
Versus
Discovery Communication India ….Respondent

Through Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Taran Deep Singh, Mr. Mayank Nagi, Mr. Tarun Singh, Ms. Husnal Syali & Mr. Harkunal Singh, Advocates.
ITA Nos. 498/2014 & 618/2014
Commissioner of Income Tax -I …Appellant

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate and Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate
Versus
Casio India Co. P. Ltd. ….Respondent

Through Mr. Deepak Chopra and Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates
ITA No. 512/2014 & 513/2014
Casio India Co. P. Ltd. …Appellant

Through Mr. Deepak Chopra and Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate and Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate
ITA No. 621/2014, 622/2014 & 642/2014
Commissioner of Income Tax -IV …Appellant

Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advs.
Versus
Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondent

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
ITA No. 521/2013
Canon India Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant

Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhutani, Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Vrinda Tulshan & Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocates
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ....Respondent Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. P. Roychaudhri, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocates
Coram: Mr. Justice SANJIV KHANNA and Mr. Justice V. KAMESWAR RAO
J U D G M E N T
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
This common judgment will dispose of these appeals and cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue in which one of the primary issue that emanates for consideration is whether advertisement, marketing and sale promotion expenditure (“AMP‘, for short) beyond and exceeding the ‘bright line‘ is a separate and independent international transaction undertaken by the resident Indian assessee towards brand building for the brand owner, i.e. the foreign Associated Enterprise (‘AE‘, for short). Other core issues pertain to aspects of arm‘s length pricing of international transactions.
2. The details of appeals and cross-appeals by the assessees and the Revenue and the assessment years involved are as under:


Assessment year

ITA No.

Assessee

Cross Appeal by Revenue

2008-09

16/2014

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd / Sony Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Now known as, Sony India Ltd.

155/2014

2008-09

70/2014

Discovery Communications India

218/2014

2006-07

521/2013

Canon India Pvt. Ltd

132/2014

2008-09

92/2014

Daikin Air Conditioning (India) Pvt. Ltd

214/2014

2007-08

93/2014

Daikin Air Conditioning (India) Pvt. Ltd

215/2014

2008-09

99/2014

Haier Appliances Pvt. Ltd

642/2014

2006-07

100/2014

Haier Appliances Pvt. Ltd

621/2014

2007-08

101/2014

Haier Appliances Pvt. Ltd

622/2014

2008-09

109/2014

Reebok India Company

213/2014

2007-08

512/2014

Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd

618/2014

2008-09

513/2014

Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd

498/2014


The common substantial questions of law which are required to be dealt with in the appeals by the assessee read:
1. Whether the additions suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of Advertising/Marketing and Promotion Expenses (‘AMP Expenses‘ for short) was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law as no specific reference was made by the Assessing Officer, having regard to retrospective amendment to Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 2012.

2. Whether AMP Expenses incurred by the assessee in India can be treated and categorized as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances?

4. If answer to question Nos.2 and 3 is in favour of the Revenue, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that transfer pricing adjustment in respect of AMP Expenses should be computed by applying Cost Plus Method.
5. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that fresh bench marking/comparability analysis should be undertaken by the Transfer Pricing Officer by applying the parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India (P) Ltd.?
The common substantial questions of law which are required to be dealt with in the appeals by the Revenue read:
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in distinguishing and directing that selling expenses in the nature of trade/volume discounts, rebates and commission paid to retailers/dealers etc. cannot be included in the AMP Expenses?
Additional question of law framed in CIT versus Reebok, ITA No.213/2014 reads:-
Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside/deleting transfer pricing adjustment made on account of payment of royalty to an associated enterprise?
A. Background facts and assessments
3. The assessed are subsidiaries of the foreign AEs. The assessed and the foreign AEs are all members of Multi-National Enterprises (‘MNE‘, for short). During the relevant period, the assessed were engaged in distribution and marketing of imported and branded products, manufactured and sold to them by the foreign AEs resident abroad. Intangible rights in the brand-name/ trademark/ trade-name were owned by the foreign AEs. There is no dispute or lis that the assessed are AEs who had entered into controlled transactions with the foreign AEs. It is also uncontested that the controlled international transactions can be made subject matter of the transfer pricing adjustment in terms of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act‘, for short).
4. In order to appreciate the controversy, we are reproducing in brief the findings of the Assessing Officer/TPO and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal‘, for short) in the case of Sony Mobile Communication Ltd, i.e. the assessee/appellant in ITA No.16/2014 and the assessee/respondent in ITA No.155/2014 filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2008-09; Reebok India Company Ltd., i.e. the assessee/appellant in ITA No.109/2014 and the assessee/respondent in ITA No.213/2014 filed by the Revenue relating to assessing year 2008-09; and, Canon India Pvt. Ltd., i.e. the appellant in ITA No.512/2013 and respondent in ITA No.12/2014 filed by the Revenue relating to assessment year 2006-07. The said three assessees have been selected because in the case of Sony Mobile Communication Pvt. Ltd., Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNM Method‘, for short) has been followed and in the case of Reebok India Company Ltd., TNM Method has been followed in respect of goods‘ sourcing and exports from India; Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (‘CUP Method‘, for short) has been followed in respect of royalty paid by the Indian AE to the foreign AE and in respect of which separate substantial question of law has been framed and Resale Price Method (‘RP Method‘, for short) has been followed for import of apparels and footwear for re-sale. In the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd., RP Method was adopted by the assessee for import of finished goods for resale. In the said case, the order passed by TPO is detailed and is a lucid exposition of the stand of the Revenue.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

Share in:

Related:

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconRhein India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. A-61, Sector 16, Noida U. P. 201301 Mobile

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconFrom the very beginning, es receivers have benefited from Sony's...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconIn terms of direction of Govt of India, on behalf of M/s. Apm terminals...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconVs. M/s Amway India Enterprises, Plot No 5, dda local Shopping Centre,...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconFiat Group Automobiles India Pvt. Limited offers you an extended...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconJet Airways (India) Limited

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconEngineering Projects (India) Ltd. (A govt. Of India Enterprise)

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconApple's Focus on India: iTunes Store, Indian Content, iPhone 5 & Apple tv in India

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconAbstract a leader in the automobile sector with more than 50 market...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconM. Sc (Mass Communications, Advertising & Journalism) Professional...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconIn terms of direction of Govt of India, on behalf of M/s Ocean Gate...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant icon照相机 品牌:索尼( sony ),尼康,康佳,富士,松下,奥林巴斯

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconSony 9-Pin Remote Protocol

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconSony Introduces First 35mm Interchangeable Lens

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant icon1. Announcement for Windows Upgrade Offer List of faqs – Sony (English-Hungarian)

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconJjc ir-u1 Universal Wireless Remote Control For use with canon, nikon,...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant icon90w universal Notebook/MP3 ac adapter w/usb lcd display & 8 lshaped...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconTwo sony high-definition video cameras sitting on the table, and...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconSony has just announced three new consumer video cameras for the...

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Sony India Limited) Appellant iconThe Shipping Corporation India




manual


When copying material provide a link © 2017
contacts
manual-guide.com
search