| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2536 (Kol-Trib) : (2020) 081 ITR (Trib) 0577 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 92C
Since it was not case of TPO that royalty paid in respect of products owned by AEs was without any use of said brand names and assessee had in its TP study included payment of royalty and according to it royalties were at arm's length, thus, proposed disallowance of royalty was not justified.
|
Transfer pricing - Computation of ALP - Royalty paid for products owned by AE -
Issue was as regards addition made towards royalty paid by assessee, which according to assessee, was accepted by TPO in earlier years. Held: Trademarks for two products owned by AEs were registered and royalties were paid not only in respect of patent but for a basket of services. Since it was not case of TPO that royalty paid in respect of these products was without any use of said brand names and assessee had in its TP study included payment of royalty and according to it, royalties were at arm's length, therefore, proposed disallowance of royalty was not justified.
Followed:CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi-HC) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2071 (Del-HC) Frigoglass India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 180 TTJ 401 (Del-Trib) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2125 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED : PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2350 (SC) National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 0342 (SC) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) : 1992 TaxPub(DT) 0858 (SC) CIT v. BC Srinivasa Setty (1979) 128 ITR 294 (SC) : 1981 TaxPub(DT) 0902 (SC) Sassoon J. David and Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC) : 1979 TaxPub(DT) 1025 (SC) CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC) : 1978 TaxPub(DT) 1028 (SC) CIT v. Walchand and Company (P) Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) : 1967 TaxPub(DT) 0323 (SC) Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) : 1951 TaxPub(DT) 0110 (SC) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 117 (Del-HC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5219 (Del-HC) CIT v. M/s. Abhinandan Investment Ltd. 2015 TaxPub(DT) 4893 (Del-HC) Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd. v. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1653 (Del-HC) Fenner (India) Ltd. v. CIT 2000 TaxPub(DT) 0205 (Mad-HC) Hughes (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bank of New Zealand (1938) 6 ITR 636 (HL) Dy. CIT v. JSW Ltd. 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2142 (Mum-Trib) DCIT v. M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2391 (Kol-Trib) Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. DCIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2168 (Kol-Trib) M/s. Philips India Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA No. 2489/Kol/2017, Order, dated 4-4-2018] Bombardier Transportation India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [I.T.A .No.-1626/Del/2015, dt. 4-11-2015] Reebok India Co. v. ACIT (ITA No. 5857/Del/2012) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 4799 (Del-Trib) DCIT v. M/s. Air Liquide Engineering India (P) Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 1040/Hyd/2011] : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1948 (Hyd-Trib) M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT I.T.A. No. 7408/Mum/2010 and I.T.A. No. 7641/Mum/2010 : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2682 (Mum-Trib) Lumax Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 5252/Del/2011) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0577 (Del-Trib) Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT [ITA No. 72, 85/PNJ/2012, dt. 8-3-2013] Dy. CIT v. CLSA India Ltd. (2013) 33 taxmann.com 260 (Mumbai-Tribunal) L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (ITA No. 5140/Del/2011) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0634 (Del-Trib) SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. v. DCIT (2013) 143 ITD 195 (Mum-ITAT) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1927 (Mum-Trib) All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 137 ITD 26 (Mum.) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2264 (Mum-Trib).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2010-11 to 2011-12
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 92B
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|