The first question is whether the OEMs have carried on business in India and used the assessee’s patents for that purpose. The mere fact that the products manufactured by the OEMs outside India were sold to parties in India does not mean that the OEM’s carried on business in India. For a business to be carried out in India there should be some activity carried out in India. A mere purchase and sale with an Indian party is not sufficient. The fact that the OEMs customized the handsets so as lock them to a specific operator and included Hindi and regional languages, etc was irrelevant as such customization was not connected with the assessee’s patents. There was no customization of the hand set qua the CDMA technology. Further, even if the OEM customized the handsets to Indian specifications that did not mean that the OEM was “carrying on business in India”. The assessee’s role ended when it licensed its patents to the OEMs and the OEMs role ended when they sold the handset to the Indian customer. The sale was of a chattel as a chattel and though the product is a combination of hardware and technology, the revenue’s attempt to break down the sale into various components is not supported by the terms of the agreement and the facts and it cannot be said that every item other than software was sold and that the embedded software has been separately licensed. There is also no evidence on record to show that title to the handsets passed in India or that certain further activity was done by the OEMs in India after the sale. On the other hand, title to the equipment passed to the Indian customer on high seas and the profits made by the OEMs would not be chargeable to tax in India. The taxability of the assessee directly depends on the taxability of the OEMs and if the OEM is not taxable, the assessee cannot be made taxable (Ericsson AB 246 CTR 433 (Del), Skoda Export, Nokia Net Works followed). Even otherwise, the mere passing of title in imported goods in India does not mean that the OEM is carrying on business in India. It is “business with India” and not “business in India”

L.G. Electronics Inc, a Korean company, set up a wholly owned subsidiary in India (the assessee) to which it provided technical assistance. The assessee agreed to pay royalty at the rate of 1% as consideration for the use of technical know how etc. The Korean company also permitted the assessee to use its brand name and trade marks to products manufactured in India on a royalty-free basis. The AO, TPO & DRP held that as the Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (“AMP expenses”) expenses incurred by the assessee were 3.85% of its sales and such percentage was higher than the expenses incurred by comparable companies (Videocon & Whirlpool), the assessee was promoting the LG brand owned by its foreign AE and hence should have been adequately compensated by the foreign AE. Applying the Bright Line Test, it was held that the expenses up to 1.39% of the sales should be considered as having been incurred for the assessee‘s own business and the remaining part which is in excess of such percentage on brand promotion of the foreign AE. The excess, after adding a markup of 13%, was computed at Rs. 182 crores. On appeal by the assessee, the Special Bench had to consider the following issues: (i) whether the TPO had jurisdiction to process an international transaction in the absence of any reference made to him by the AO? (ii) whether in the absence of any verbal or written agreement between the assessee and the AE for promoting the brand, there can be said to be a “transaction“? (iii) whether a distinction can be made between the “economic ownership” and “legal ownership” of a brand and the expenses for the former cannot be treated as being for the benefit of the owner? (iv) whether such a “transaction“, if any, can be treated as an “international transaction“? (v) whether the “Bright Line Test” which is a part of U. S. legislation can be applied for making the transfer pricing adjustment? (vi) whether as the entire AMP expenses were deductible u/s 37(1) despite benefit to the brand owner, a transfer pricing adjustment so as to disallow the said expenditure could be made? (vii) what are the factors to be considered while choosing the comparable cases & determining the cost/value of the international transaction of AMP expenses? (viii) whether, if as per TNMM, the assessee’s profit is found to be as good as the comparables, a separate adjustment for AMP expenses can still be made? (ix) whether the verdict in Maruti Suzuki 328 ITR 210 (Del) has been over-ruled/ merged into the order of the Supreme Court so as to cease to have binding effect?

S. 50C applies only to the transfer of “land or building” and not to the transfer of all “immovable property“. Accordingly, though FSI and TDR is “immovable property” as held in Chedda Housing Development vs. Babijan Shekh Farid 2007 (3) MLJ 402 (Bom), it is not “land or building” and so cannot be the subject matter of s. 50C. The property acquired for development (in lieu of which the FSI/TDR was granted) also cannot be considered even though the property continues to stand in the assessee’s name in the property records. The property should be valued by the DVO net of the land transferred to the Developer by the assessee after considering the acquisition made by the Govt & the Municipal Corporation and also excluding the value of TDR or additional FSI included in the consideration shown in the Development Agreement

S. 50C applies only to the transfer of a “capital asset, being land or building or both”, “assessed” by any authority of a State Government for stamp duty purposes. The expression “transfer” has to be a direct transfer as defined u/s 2(47) which does not include the tax planning adopted by the assessee. S. 50C is a deeming provisions and has to be interpreted strictly in accordance with the spirit of the provision. On facts, the subject matter of transfer is shares in a company and not land or building or both. The assessee did not have full ownership on the flats which are owned by the company. The transfer of shares was never a part of the assessment of the Stamp duty Authorities of the State Government. Also, the company was deriving income which was taxable under the head ‘income from property’ for more than a decade. Consequently, the action of the AO & CIT(A) to invoke s. 50C to the tax planning adopted by the assessee is not proper and does not have the sanction of the provisions of the Act

The assessee is seeking extension of stay beyond 365 days. The assessee argued that on similar facts the matter is pending before the Supreme Court in case of Idea Cellular Ltd and Bharti Cellular Ltd wherein ad interim order had been passed. In CIT vs. Ronuk Industries Ltd 333 ITR 99 (Bom) & Tata Communications Ltd 138 TTJ 257 (Mum) (SB) it has been held that the Tribunal has power to extend the period of stay beyond 365 days under the Third Proviso to s. 254(2A) even if the delay in disposing off the appeal is not attributable to the assessee as there may be several other reasons for not disposing of the appeal by the ITAT. In Qualcomm Incorporated (ITAT Del) it was held that as there was a cleavage of opinion between the Bombay High Court and the Karnataka High Court and there was no decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the issue, the view favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. Consequently, the stay has to be extended subject to certain conditions