2023 (8) TMI 1117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e (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] ,
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Ashvini Kumar, Ms Madhavi Shukla and Mr Nikhil Jain, Advs. For the Respondent Through: Mr Mayank Nagi, Adv. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e issue of AMP? B. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is perverse in holding that AMP does not constitute an "international transaction" when the issue of AMP has been ruled as an international transaction in the case of M/s Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication Pvt. Ltd. by Hon'ble Delhi High Court [(2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del)]? C. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that the Bright Line Test was not mandated in law and hence impermissible without considering the fact that the BLT was not used as a method to determine the price but only as an economic tool to arrive at the cost of services rendered to the foreign enterprise by the Indian .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osed, are covered against the appellant/revenue by the decision of the coordinate bench in Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Addl. CIT 2015 SCC Online Del 14382. 11. This decision has been followed by another coordinate bench in ITA 487/2022, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi Vs. Xerox India Ltd which is dated 25.11.2022. 12. As would be evident, the said judgement concerns the respondent/assessee. 13. Likewise, we are informed that insofar as proposed question no. G is concerned, it is covered by the decision of the coordinate bench dated 18.01.2016, passed in ITA No. 771/2015, titled The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-08 vs M/s Xerox India Ltd. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X