9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o been followed in Bausch Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd.[ 2015 (12) TMI 1332 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Sharp Business Systems (India) (P.) Ltd. [ 2022 (8) TMI 1539 - DELHI HIGH COURT] We may also note that argument is that the TPO has failed to establish that there was an international transaction obtaining with respect to AMP expenses, with a view to build the brand of the AE, with the object that AE could achieve sales in other territories. Needless to state, this submission has been made by Assessee on the merits of the appeal. Insofar as the position in law is concerned, i.e., concerning the application of BLT, concededly, insofar as this court is concerned, it stands concluded via the decisions referred to hereinabove, albeit, against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred qua the decision rendered by the Tribunal qua AY 2011-12. 5.1 Mr Bhatia says that he has received verbal instructions that approval was granted for lodging an appeal in this court. However, what is not clear is as to whether, in fact, an appeal was instituted. 6. That said, Mr Bhatia has drawn our attention to the decision dated 29.03.2019 rendered by the Tribunal in the respondent/assessee s case for AY 2011-12. In particular, Mr Bhatia has drawn our attention to paragraph 6.9 of the said decision, which alludes to the Tribunal s decision rendered in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 159 (Del-Trib). 6.1 A careful perusal of the said paragraph would show that the Tribunal adverted to the decisions render ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, [2016] 65 taxmann.com 141/237 and by another coordinate bench in Dy. CIT v. Sharp Business Systems (India) (P.) Ltd., (2022) 145 taxmann.com 114 (Del). 9. We are told that the appellant/revenue has preferred appeals with the Supreme Court, in matters concerning Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd. and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 10. We may also note that it is the submission of Mr Himanshu Sinha, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, that in the subject trademark licensing agreement and royalty agreement, there is nothing which is suggestive of the fact that there was any arrangement or agreement obtaining between the respondent/assessee and its Associated Enterprise (AE), to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
