INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Deepak Chopra, Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Rohan Khare, Pulkit Pandey and Priyam Bhatnagar, AZB & Partners
outsourcing services could not be considered as a good comparable. [Refer: PCIT v Sym - phony Marketing Solutions India (P.) Ltd., Order dated 25.11.2024 in ITA No 717 of 2018 (Delhi HC)] • The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi opined that in a case where there was no material or evidence which may have tended to establish existence of an arrangement between the Indian entity and its AE, or which may have been viewed as evidence of them acting in concert, advertising, marketing and promo - tional expenses did not amount to brand building for benefit of the AE. [Refer: PCIT v Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) (P.) Ltd., Order dated 07.03.2025 in ITA No 155 and 156 of 2022 (Delhi HC); PCIT v Pernod Ricard India (P.) Ltd., Order dated 29.08.2024 in ITA No 872 of 2019 (Delhi HC); and PCIT v Pepisco India Holding (P.) Ltd., Order dated 16.05.2024 in ITA No 682 of 2019 (Delhi HC);] • The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Hary - ana held that in a case where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the TPO to pass a fresh order under Sec - tion 92CA(3) of the IT Act and, thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the final order under Section 143(3) of the IT Act without, at the first instance, passing a draft order as mandated under Section 144C of the IT Act, the said order would not be sustainable in law. [Refer: Mavenir India (P.) Ltd. v DCIT, Order dated 11.12.2024 in CWP 2367 of 2019 (O&M) (Punjab & Haryana HC)] • The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that a company engaged in content creation and which is a full-fledged channel company could not be a good comparable to a compa - ny engaged in the distribution of TV channels. [Refer: PCIT v Warnermedia India (P.) Ltd., Order dated 10.09.2024 in ITA No 437 of 2020 (Delhi HC)]
• The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appel - late Tribunal held that where a taxpayer had paid royalties for goods which had been imported by it and the TPO took royalties as NIL by holding that with imported goods, payment of royalty was embedded and, thus, an upward adjustment was made, since Customs Authorities had given a categori - cal finding that royalties were not included in the invoice value of goods imported by the taxpayer, upward adjustment in respect of payment of royalty was to be deleted. [Refer: Reckitt Benckiser (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT, Order dated 18.03.2025 in ITA No 78/ Kol/2018 (Kolkata Tribunal)] • The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that where the taxpayer had availed administrative support services from its AE and had submitted cost benefit analy - sis and relevant documentary evidence of these services, transfer pricing adjustments made by Tax Authorities for want of docu - ments to establish availing of administrative support services deserved to be deleted. [Refer: Corteva Agriscience India (P.) Ltd. v DCIT, Order dated 12.02.2025 in ITA No 1574/ Del/2018 (Delhi Tribunal)] • The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that where a parent company accorded consent to a taxpayer to export specific models of two-wheelers to certain countries on payment of export commission at a rate of 5% of free on-board value of such exports, but Tax Authorities determined ALP of said export commission at NIL holding that no service was provided by the AE to deserve any commission, since the taxpayer had suc - cessfully demonstrated not only benefits but had also shown that profitability was higher, Tax Authorities were directed to delete the addition on account of export commission. [Refer: Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India (P.)
186 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook