9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,59,54,395/- by virtue of recomputation of arm's length price of international transactions vide his impugned order dated September 10, 2012; 2. Application of methodology 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the approach adopted by the assessee with respect to bifurcation of the marketing expenses into value-added and non-value added components and making an adjustment considering the entire marketing cost, thus considering a mark-up on pass-through non-value added costs as well. 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in calcula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 92C and has failed to grant the relief for the downward adjustment of 5% from the arithmetic mean of the comparables." 2. Ground no.1 raised by the assessee is general. Considering the general nature, the said Ground no.1 is dismissed. Ground nos. 3 and 4 are not pressed. Therefore, Ground nos. 3 and 4 are dismissed as not pressed. That leaves Ground no.2 for our adjudication. 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a subsidiary of Cobra Beer Ltd., UK (Cobra UK) engaged as a marketing service for Cobra brand of products in India. Assessee received Rs. 5,96,76,996/- from Cobra-UK for the same. Cobra India brews beer in India through local contract manufacturer. Assessee recorded the international transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT in ITA No. 110/2014 and ITA 710/2015, dated 11th December, 2015 and the coordinate Bench decision of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Johnson & Johnson Limited vs. ADIT vide I.T.A. No.829/M/2014 (AY 2009-2010), dated 07.01.2016. Summarising the above, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ground no.2 with its sub-grounds are required to be set aside and remanded to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication following the guidelines mentioned by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above referred cases. Otherwise, it is the case of the assessee that AMP expenses constitute 40% of the sales and the assessee received from the AEs only to the extent of 7% which was not accepted by the Revenue Authorities. He further submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of L.G. Electronics (supra). As on today, the 'BLT' is not to be applied in such benchmarking exercise of the AMP expenditure. AP/TPO is statutorily bound to apply the existing methods mentioned in the IT Act, 1961/IT Rules, 1962. We, accordingly, remand the issue, that revolves around the TP adjustment of Rs. 133.02 (rounded of), to the file of the AO/TPO to benchmark these transactions, if necessary in the light of the guidelines specified in the precedents enunciated by the Delhi High Court (supra). Further, TPO is directed to apply all the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suziki India Limited vs. CIT in ITA No. 110/2014 and ITA 710/2015, dated 11th December, 2015 in the remand proceedings in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
