2019 (8) TMI 516 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance made on account of payment of Royalty on sales made to AEs - HELD THAT - Disallowance on account of payment of Royalty on sales made to AEs, reference is made to the orders of this Court in Honda Siel Power Products Limited vs. DCIT 2015 (12) TMI 1333 - DELHI HIGH COURT and CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Limited 2016 (1) TMI 1283 - DELHI HIGH COURT whereby the issue stands answered in favour of the Assessee. Accordingly, this Court declines to frame a question on this issue. AMP expenditure - it stands covered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by order Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 v. Honda Siel Power Products Limited 2017 (3) TMI 1535 - DELHI HIGH COURT Provision for service coupon is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Honda Siel Power Products Limited 2017 (3) TMI 1535 - DELHI HIGH COURT Provision for warranty as an allowable expense is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the order in CIT v. Honda Siel Cars India Limited 2013 (5) TMI 1011 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of payment of Royalty on sales made to AEs
2. Treatment of services of market development (AMP) as international transactions
3. Benchmarking of Arm's length price of AMP expenditure under Section 92C
4. Transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenditure
5. Allowability of provisions for service coupon under Section 31(1)
6. Allowability of provisions for warranty under Section 37(1)

Detailed Analysis:
1. The issue of disallowance of payment of Royalty on sales made to Associated Enterprises (AEs) was raised by the Revenue. The Court declined to frame a question on this issue as it was previously answered in favor of the Assessee in earlier cases, specifically referring to orders dated December 23, 2015, and January 14, 2016. The Court relied on precedents where the issue was resolved in favor of the Assessee, leading to the dismissal of the question in the present case.

2. Regarding the treatment of services of market development (AMP) as international transactions, the Revenue questioned the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). However, the Court noted that this issue was already decided in favor of the Assessee in a previous order dated March 1, 2017. The Court reiterated that the issue stands covered in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of this question as well.

3. The question of benchmarking the Arm's length price of AMP expenditure under Section 92C was raised by the Revenue. The Court referenced a previous order dated May 16, 2017, where the issue concerning the provision for service coupon was decided against the Revenue and in favor of the Assessee. This precedent influenced the Court's decision to answer the question in favor of the Assessee and dismiss the appeal.

4. The issue of transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenditure was also brought up by the Revenue. However, the Court pointed to a previous order dated May 6, 2013, where the issue concerning the provision for warranty as an allowable expense was resolved in favor of the Assessee. Based on this precedent, the Court answered the question in favor of the Assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

5. Lastly, the question of the allowability of provisions for service coupon under Section 31(1) was raised. The Court referred to a previous order dated May 6, 2013, where the issue concerning the provision for warranty as an allowable expense was decided in favor of the Assessee. This influenced the Court's decision to answer the question in favor of the Assessee, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

← Previous Next →