9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1117 - HC - Income TaxTP adjustment - rejection of AMP adjustment using BLT method - Whether ITAT was justified in holding that the Bright Line Test was not mandated in law and hence impermissible ? - whether AMP cannot be inferred to be international transaction in the absence of any agreement arrangement or understanding between the taxpayer and its AE ? - HElD THAT - As questions of law i.e. A to F as proposed are covered against the appellant/revenue by the decision of the coordinate bench in Bausch Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (12) TMI 1332 - DELHI HIGH COURT .This decision has been followed by another coordinate bench in Xerox India Ltd 2022 (11) TMI 1391 - DELHI HIGH COURT As would be evident the said judgement concerns the respondent/assessee. Depreciation on de-capitalized assets - This issue is covered by the decision of the titled The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-08 vs M/s Xerox India Ltd. 2016 (1) TMI 945 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Issues involved:
Delay in filing and re-filing the appeal; Questions of law proposed for consideration in the appeal. Delay in filing and re-filing the appeal: The appellant sought condonation of a 14-day delay in filing the appeal and a 34-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The respondent's counsel had no objection to condoning the delay. Considering the delay and the respondent's stance, the court inclined to condone the delay, and the applications were allowed accordingly. Questions of law proposed for consideration in the appeal: The appeal pertained to the Assessment Year 2009-10, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 19.10.2022. The appellant raised several questions of law for consideration by the court, including issues related to the rejection of the AMP adjustment, classification of AMP as an international transaction, the use of Bright Line Test, and the inference of AMP as an international transaction in the absence of a formal agreement. The appellant conceded that the proposed questions of law were unfavorable due to precedents set by previous decisions, indicating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was closed based on the precedents and lack of substantial legal issues for review.
|
