| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
November 19, 2010 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
High Court’s judgement on transfer pricing of trademarks & brands licensing nullified
In Maruti Suzuki vs. ACIT 328 ITR 210 (Del), the Delhi High Court whilst remanding the matter to the TPO for fresh consideration inter alia held that if a domestic Associate Enterprise is mandatorily required to use the foreign trademark on its products, the foreign entity should make payment to the domestic entity on account of the benefit the foreign entity derives in the form of marketing intangibles from such mandatory use of the trademark. Certain other far-reaching principles on transfer pricing of trademarks & brands were set out. On appeal by the assessee, HELD disposing off the Appeal:
“In this case, the High Court has remitted the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer with liberty to issue fresh show-cause notice. The High Court has further directed the TPO to decide the matter in accordance with law. Further, on going through the impugned judgement of the High Court dated 1st July, 2010, we find that the High Court has not merely set aside the original show-cause notice but it has made certain observations on the merits of the case and has given directions to the TPO, which virtually concludes the matter. In the circumstances, on that limited issue, we hereby direct the TPO, who, in the meantime, has already issued a show-cause notice on 16th September, 2010, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations/directions given by the High Court in the impugned judgement dated 1st July, 2010.”
Related Posts:
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Deductions under Section 43B is allowable only when sum is actually paid by the assessee. In the present case, the Excise Duty leviable on appellant on manufacture of vehicles was already adjusted in the concerned assessment year from the credit of Excise Duty under the MODVAT scheme. The unutilised credit…
- Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. Bishal Jaiswal (Supreme Court) Under S. 18 an acknowledgement of liability signed by the party against whom the right is claimed gives rise to a fresh period of limitation. Under Explanation (b) to the Section the word ‘signed’ means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised. A company being a corporate body…
- South East Asia Marine Engineering And Constructions Ltd (Seamec Ltd) vs. Oil India Ltd (Supreme… From the aforesaid discussion, it can be said that the contract was based on a fixed rate. The party, before entering the tender process, entered the contract after mitigating the risk of such an increase. If the purpose of the tender was to limit the risks of price variations, then…
- ACIT vs. Marico Ltd (Supreme Court) The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order would amount to the Assessing Officer accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be…
- Vodafone Idea Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) In the premises, we hold that in respect of Assessment Years ending on 31st March 2017 or before, if a notice was issued in conformity with the requirements stated in sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, it shall not be necessary to process the refund under subsection (1)…
- Bank Of India vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, our entire focus was on whether these foreign tax credits could be allowed even when such tax credits lead to a situation in which taxes paid abroad could be refunded in India, but that must not be construed to mean that, as a corollary to our…
Leave a Reply