9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J: (OPEN COURT) The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Tribunal in ITA No.4477/Del/2010. The question of law urged on its behalf is: - "Whether the Tribunal fell into error in deleting Rs.33.82 crores being 40% of the license royalty paid by the assessee to the owner of the brand and trademark i.e. Societe Des Products Nestle S.A. Switzerland?" 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm's length price of the international transaction of payment of royalty cannot be determined in the present circumstances. However, this should not be construed to mean that the payment of royalty and advertisement and sales promotion expenses are reasonable. Their reasonableness can be examined by the Assessing officer under other provision is ions on the Income Tax Act. On perusal of the obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and that the royalty was excessive in the circumstances of the case so as to attract proportionate disallowance of 40%. The CIT (Appeals) directed the deletion of the disallowance in its entirety, after analyzing the facts and circumstances. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by ITAT. The relevant part of the impugned order containing the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced by the decision of the High Court. Looking to the earlier decisions in this case, which we are bound to follow, it is held that the ld. CIT (Appeals) rightly deleted the addition of Rs.33.82 crore by relying on earlier orders of the Tribunal." 4. This Court notices that the Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision, of the assessee itself, of this Court i.e. CIT v. Nestle India Ltd., (2011) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial on record concluded that pricing adjustment was unnecessary; therefore, the application of this amendment, made later, to the facts of this case especially in a context in which they have arisen, is academic. 6. This Court sees no reason to differ with the view taken by it in Nestle India Ltd. (surpa). No substantial question of law arises, in these circumstances the appeal is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
