TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition - Held that:- TPO is obliged under the law to determine the ALP by following any one of the prescribed methods of determining the ALP as detailed in Section 92C(1) of the Act. In this case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the TPO had applied any one of the prescribed methods in Section 92C(1) of the Act to determine the ALP before disallowing the payment of ₹ 200.82 lakhs incurred by the Respondent on account of publicity and sales management as being excessive and/or payable by its parent, M/s. Johnson & Johnson, USA. The impugned order holds that transfer pricing adjustment done by disallowing the payment, on the basis of an assumption that it is excessive, is an action completely dehors the provisions of transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has not discharged its onus to prove the reasonableness? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in reducing the disallowance of 50% of professional sponsorship expenses to 2% after agreeing to the observations of the DRP and without assigning any reasons? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation is allowable on the testing equipments not used by the assessee for its business which is contrary to the provision u/s. 32 of the Income Tax Act? (e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in reducing the disallowance of 75% of expenses on free s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 200.82 lacs on account of publicity and sales promotion expenses? (m) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not restoring the matter to the TPO to decide the issue afresh after considering the guidelines laid down by Special Bench (Delhi) in the case of L. G. Electronics India Ltd.,? 3 Re Questions (a), (b), (d) (i) : (i) It is an agreed position between the parties that the aforesaid questions as urged herein, stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the RespondentAssessee by the order dated 7th March, 2017 of this Court in Revenue's appeal being Income Tax Appeal No. 1030 of 2014 (CIT v/s. Joh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 200.82 lakhs incurred by the Respondent on account of publicity and sales management as being excessive and/or payable by its parent, M/s. Johnson Johnson, USA. (iii) The impugned order holds that transfer pricing adjustment done by disallowing the payment, on the basis of an assumption that it is excessive, is an action completely dehors the provisions of transfer pricing adjustment found in chapter X of the Act. The determination of the ALP has to be done only by following one of the methods prescribed under the Act. (iv) In view of the above, as the Revenue has not acted in accordance with the clear mandate of law, the questions as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5 Re Q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
