Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Maruti Suzuki India vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)

Maruti Suzuki India vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 19, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (maruti_suzuki_transfer_pricing_SC.pdf)

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.”

Note: See Also Coca Cola India Inc vs. ACIT where the judgement of the P&H High Court in 309 ITR 194 was nullified in similar manner

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…
  • PCIT vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) The objections raised by the respondent (assessee) to the notice contending inter alia that since the impugned notice was based on "change of the opinion" and hence bad in law was upheld by the ITAT resulting in allowing the respondent's appeal and further by dismissing the Revenue's appeal by the…
  • PCIT vs. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court) Having heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellant, and giving credence to the fact that he has argued before us that the administrative Circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a quasi judicial authority, we only need to clarify…
  • 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…

Related Judgements

  1. Synco Industries vs. ITO (Supreme Court) 

    If the assessee has suffered a loss in one unit, the same has to be set-off against the profits of the undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IA etc and if the resultant figure is a loss, no deduction under Chapter VI-A is allowable;
    Read more ›
  2. CIT vs. Oriental Insurance (Supreme Court) 

    Where the High Court dismissed the appeals filed against a PSU on the ground that an application for permission of the COD had not been obtained within the period of 30 days as laid down in ONGC’s case, held that there was actually no rigid time frame indicated by…
  3. Mysodet (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Where in respect of the asst. year 1990-91, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-HHC on traded goods on the proportion that the export turnover bore to the total turnover even though there were no profits from the export activity and the High Court held, relying on IPCA Laboratories…
  4. PNB Finance vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    As the undertaking was transferred as a going concern and there was no evidence on record to show that the compensation had been arrived at on an item-wise allocation of the various assets of the undertaking and there was no “cost of acquisition” of the undertaking, capital gains was…
  5. CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (Supreme Court) 

    S. 94(7) was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2002 to curb claim of such loss. However, the effect of s. 94(7) is that only losses to extent of dividend have to be ignored by the AO and not the entire loss. Losses over and above the dividend are still allowable even…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*