9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -09 and 2009-10 in ITA No. 7545/Mum/2012 & 1943/Mum/2014 order dated 27-04-2016, wherein Tribunal has categorically held that in the absence of an agreement between the assessee and its Associated Enterprises (AE) AMP expenses, payments made falling under the head of AMP to the domestic parties, transaction cannot be said to be international transaction. The learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the Tribunal's order wherein Tribunal has discussed the issue in Para 5 as under: - "5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. Undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee had entered in to international transactions with its AE's, that it had determined the ALP of such transaction adopting TNMM, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reement between the assessee and the AE.s. for sharing AMP expenses, payment made by the assessee under the head AMP to the domestic parties, failure of the TPO prove that expenses were not for the business carried out by the assessee in India-and following the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of Bausch and Lomb (India) Pvt. Ltd(supra),we are of the opinion that the transaction in question was not an international transaction and that the TPO had wrongly invoked the provisions of Chapter X of the Act for the said transaction. First effective ground of appeal (GOA1- 16) is decided in favour of the assessee and the additions made by the AO are directed to be deleted." 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee too ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... national transaction in view of the Tribunal's decision for assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. He could not contest. The learned Sr. DR only relied on the Delhi Tribunal Bench decision in the case of Nikon India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi - Trib) for AY 2012-13 vide order dated 31 March 2017. 6. We find that in this year also the facts are exactly identical what were in AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. This fact is conceded by the learned Sr. DR as the issue is covered and even the similar view is taken by Tribunal in various other case i.e. in ITA No. 5470/Mum/2012 for AY vide order dated 18-05-2016, Loreal India Private Limited & Ors. Vs. DCZIT (2016) 49 ITR (Trib) 0473 (Mumbai) dated 04 March 2016, & in ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
