9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not dispute the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses. This Court is not required to opine whether such concession was rightly made or not. However, as far AY 2010-11 is concerned, the Assessee appears to have raised a specific ground both before the DRP as well as the ITAT regarding existence of an international transaction and this is reiterated in this Court in the present appeal of the Assessee as well. Such plea will have to be decided by the ITAT in accordance with law. Consequently, it is ordered that the impugned order of the ITAT is set aside and the said appeal stands restored to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT will decide the aforementioned appeal afresh in light of the directions issued by this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 2013 22 ITR (Trib) 1 (ITAT[Del]) and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to decide the issue in the light of that decision. 4. The decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in LG Electronics (supra) was examined by this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del). The decision of this Court was rendered on 16th March 2015, which was shortly after the impugned order of the ITAT in the present case. One of the significant conclusions in Sony Ericsson (supra) was that the Bright Line Test ( BLT ) could not be applied for either determining the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses or for determining the ALP of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... saction with their respective AEs involving incurring of AMP expenses. As far as the present Assessee is concerned, the appeal disposed of by the decision in Sony Ericsson (supra) pertained to AY 2008-09. The present appeal pertains to AY 2010-11. 7. The present appeals were initially adjourned to await the decision of this Court in an application for clarification filed by the Assessee in relation to the decision in Sony Ericsson(supra). That application, however, has been dismissed as withdrawn on 20th November 2015. 8. Mr. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the Assessee, points out that before the Dispute Resolution Panel ( DRP ) a specific ground was raised by the Assessee that the incurring of AMP expenses by the Assessee was a fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
