| 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…
- PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (Supreme Court) In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds…
- Goodyear India Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) In our opinion, such communication(s) cannot be treated as admission of non-disclosure as such. What is significant to note is that in the present case, the disclosure is attributed to Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co., USA, filed by it in the proceedings in USA; and not by the assessee as…
- Genpact India Private Limited vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) If the submission of the appellant is accepted and the concerned expression as stated hereinabove in Section 246(1)(a) or in Section 246A(1)(a) is to be considered as relatable to the liability of an assessee to be assessed under Section 143(3) as contended, there would be no appellate remedy in case…
- 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…
Leave a Reply