Facts of the Case
The present appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging a
common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment
Year 2011-12.
The central issue revolved around whether routine selling
and distribution expenses should be included within Advertising, Marketing and
Promotion (AMP) expenses for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis.
The Revenue contended that such expenses contributed to the creation of marketing intangibles and therefore should be considered as part of AMP expenses.
Issues Involved
- Whether
routine selling and distribution expenses form part of AMP expenses under
transfer pricing provisions.
- Whether
the ITAT erred in excluding such expenses from AMP calculations.
- Whether the issue was already covered by binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)
- The
ITAT erred in holding that routine selling and distribution expenses are
not part of AMP expenses.
- Such
expenses contribute to the creation of marketing intangibles.
- Different accounting heads should not affect comparability analysis in transfer pricing.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)
- The
issue raised by the Revenue does not arise in one of the appeals.
- The
matter is already covered by earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in
assessee’s own case.
- The settled law laid down in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del) applies squarely.
Court’s Findings / Judgment
- The
Court observed that the issue is already covered by binding precedent
of the Delhi High Court.
- The
reliance was placed on:
- Sony
Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015)
- Earlier
judgment in assessee’s own case (AY 2009-10)
- The
Court held:
- Mere
pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court does not dilute the binding
nature of the High Court judgment unless stayed.
- Following
Supreme Court rulings in:
- Kunhayammed
vs. State of Kerala (2000)
- Shree
Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South India Trust (1992)
- Result:
- ITA
No. 331/2022: Dismissed as covered by binding precedent
- ITA No. 330/2022: Dismissed as not maintainable
Important Clarification by Court
- The
order shall be subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court
decision in:
Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Civil Appeal No. 132/2016).
Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:3670-DB/MMH14092022ITA3302022_193410.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment