Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Transaction is approved by the RBI and Government is not sufficient and the assessee has to benchmark the royalty payment separately

Income Tax - By: - Suraj Agrawal - Dated:- 12-10-2016 Last Replied Date:- 12-10-2016 - Case Law Citation: - Sara Lee TTK Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) [ 2016 (9) TMI 907 - ITAT MUMBAI ]; ITA no. 376/Mum/2012; Date of pronouncement August 24, 2016; AY 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

000 series) and restricted it to 1% on the plea that the payment was for use of trademark without transfer of technology. Case Summary:- Facts of the case: The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of shore care, househo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

saction relating to the payment of royalty is at arm's length. However, the TPO relying on the press note 9(2000 series) dated 08.9.2000, restricted the royalty payment to 1% of domestic sale towards the use of trademark without transfer of techn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e RBI permitted royalty @ 5% of net sales on domestic sales and 8% on net sales on export sales under automatic route and hence those approvals cannot be considered as a benchmark towards royalty for the use of trademark/brand. In the facts and circu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tentions of Appellant: The agreement is a mere extension of the original agreement of 1995 and hence the royalty payment cannot be regarded as being restricted to the use of Trademark alone. He contended that Press Note 9 (2000) series relied upon by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rks and brand names without technology transfer. However, in the present case, since there is a technology transfer, it is clear that the restriction in Para III has no application. With respect to objection of revenue that there has been no benchmar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntention by Respondent: The RBI's approval is in connection with foreign exchange and it would look into the matter from that angle only. Their approval for the purpose of remittance/ outflow of foreign exchange, does not ipso facto, partake the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing Report. It is settled proposition of law that it is the onus of the assessee to prove that the transactions were taken at arm's length. The RBI approval/FIPB approval is not determinative of ALP and cannot be considered to be a valid CUP. Aut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version