TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Sauzdbh Sparkar, Bandish Soparkar For the Respondent : N. K. Chand-CIT, Abhinahy Kumbhar, DR ORDER D. Karunakara Rao (Accountant Member) This appeal filed by the assessee on 29.11.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-15, Mumbai dated 10.9.2012 for the assessment year 2007-2008. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in making an addition of ₹ 1,59,54,395/- by virtue of recomputation of arm s length price of international transactions vide his impugned order dated September 10, 2012; 2. Application of methodology 2.1. On the facts and in the cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. 3.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the approach followed by the appellant in preparing contemporaneous documentation to give true commercial impact of an arm s length standard in the pricing of the international transaction; 4. Denial of plus/minus 5% benefit 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in not applying the proviso to section 92C and has failed to grant the relief for the downward adjustment of 5% from the arithmetic mean of the comparables. 2. Ground no.1 raised by the assessee is general . Considering the general nature, the said Ground no.1 is dismissed. Ground nos. 3 and 4 are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cion instead of considering the total sales of the assessee. Aggrieved with the above, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the above conclusions and raised various arguments. 5. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order being dated 10.9.2012 by the CIT (A) was passed prior to the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd vs CIT [374 ITR 118] and Maruti Suziki India Limited vs. CIT in ITA No. 110/2014 and ITA 710/2015, dated 11th December, 2015 and the coordinate Bench decision of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Johnson Johnson Limited vs. ADIT vide I.T.A. No.829/M/2014 (AY 2009-2010), dated 07.01.2016. Summarising the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties on this issue of benchmarking the AMP expenses qua the brand development and find the AO/TPO relied heavily on the Special Bench decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd (supra) in making the adjustments and in applying the BLT in benchmarking the AMP expenditure. It is an undisputed fact that the Hon ble Delhi High Court has rendered a judgment in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd (supra), reversing the said Special Bench decision in the case of L.G. Electronics (supra). As on today, the BLT is not to be applied in such benchmarking exercise of the AMP expenditure. AP/TPO is statutorily bound to apply the existing methods mentioned in the IT Act, 1961/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
