Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax V
High Court
14 Sep 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax V
Date of order
14 Sep 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax V, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Counsel for the Revenue urges that as to whether the ruling in Maruti Suzuki (supra) applies or whether the AMP expenses are to be treated on an application of the rule enunciated in Sony Ericsson (supra) would have to be decided by the concerned TPO.
Decision: The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 674/2014
RAYBAN SUN OPTICS INDIA LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra with Ms. Rashi Khanna and Mr. Anmol Anand, Advocates. Khanna and Mr. Anmol Anand, Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Jr. Standing Counsel.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
%
O R D E R14.09.2016
The matter is listed today as 13.09.2016 was declared holiday
on account of „Id-ul-Zuha‟.
-The question of law sought to be urged is:
“whether in the circumstances of the case the ITAT acted
correctly in upholding the transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of the assessee‟s declared income in the light of the then prevailing ruling of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, (2013) 152 TTJ (Del.) 273”
The assessee urges that the ruling in L.G. Electronics (supra)has been preceded by the Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd.v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118. It urges more pointedly
that the activity to which transfer pricing adjustments were ordered in this case for the relevant assessment years related to AMP expenses towards manufacturing activities. It relies upon subsequent ruling of this Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (ITA 110/2014, decided on 11.12.2015).
Counsel for the Revenue urges that as to whether the ruling in Maruti Suzuki (supra) applies or whether the AMP expenses are to be treated on an application of the rule enunciated in Sony Ericsson (supra) would have to be decided by the concerned TPO.
Having regard to the facts of the case - as discernable from the ITAT‟s order specially paragraph 3 & 4, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remitted for proper investigation in the first instance to the ITAT. It is so directed.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
/vikas/
DEEPA SHARMA, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue