Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2016 (9) TMI 1332 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Assessee's Appeal Allowed for Statistic Remand; Revenue's Appeal Dismissed Upholding MTM Loss | The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration following the Delhi High Court's ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Assessee's Appeal Allowed for Statistic Remand; Revenue's Appeal Dismissed Upholding MTM Loss |

                          The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration following the Delhi High Court's guidelines on determining the arm's length price for AMP expenses. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the DRP's decision to allow the MTM loss claimed by the assessee, in line with the Supreme Court's precedent in CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Adjustment made by the TPO on account of AMP expenses incurred by the assessee.
                          2. Disallowance of market-to-market loss of restatement of assets and liabilities as on the balance sheet date.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Adjustment Made by the TPO on Account of AMP Expenses Incurred by the Assessee:

                          The primary issue in the assessee's appeal (ITA no. 1515/Del/2014) revolves around the adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) concerning the Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotional (AMP) expenses incurred by the assessee. The assessee, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Haier Electrical Appliances Corp. Ltd., had reported eight international transactions. The TPO observed that the Transfer Pricing (TP) study submitted by the assessee was silent about the marketing intangibles developed in India for the products of its Associated Enterprise (AE) by incurring significant AMP expenditure.

                          The TPO issued a show cause notice to the assessee, pointing out that the AMP expenses incurred were significantly higher than those incurred by comparable companies, suggesting brand building efforts for the AE. The TPO proposed benchmarking the AMP expenses using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method with a markup of 15%, leading to an adjustment of Rs. 13,59,01,632/-. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) confirmed the TPO’s action but reduced the markup to 9%, resulting in an adjusted difference of Rs. 1,14,601,751/-.

                          Both parties agreed that in light of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's decision in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del), the matter should be restored to the file of the AO/TPO for de novo consideration. The High Court had laid down several guidelines for determining the arm's length price in relation to AMP expenses, emphasizing a detailed functional analysis and appropriate comparability analysis.

                          2. Disallowance of Market-to-Market Loss of Restatement of Assets and Liabilities as on Balance Sheet Date:

                          The sole effective ground in the revenue’s appeal (ITA no. 1582/Del/2014) concerns the disallowance of Rs. 2,93,89,615/- made by the AO on account of the market-to-market (MTM) loss of restatement of assets and liabilities as on the balance sheet date. The AO had disallowed the claim, considering it notional, despite the assessee relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC), which held that such losses are allowable under section 37(1).

                          The DRP allowed the assessee’s claim, observing that the loss was fully covered by AS-11 and the Supreme Court's decision. The DRP noted that the MTM loss claimed by the taxpayer was on actual monetary items appearing in the balance sheet due to their reinstatement and not on forex derivatives. The department did not bring any material to counter these factual aspects noted by the DRP.

                          The tribunal sustained the DRP’s order, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodward Governor India P. Ltd., and dismissed the revenue’s appeal.

                          Conclusion:

                          The assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration in light of the Delhi High Court's guidelines. The revenue’s appeal was dismissed, upholding the DRP’s decision to allow the MTM loss claimed by the assessee.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found