GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., GURGAON Vs ADDL. CIT., SPECIAL RANGE -8, NEW DELHI

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT New Delhi

Brief :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31/10/2018passed under Section 254/143(3) read with Section 144 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by Addl. CIT(A), New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14.

Citation :
I.T.A. No. 7285/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2013-14)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 7285/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2013-14)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Samsung India Electronics Pvt.
Ltd. 20th-24th Floors, DLF Two
Horizon Centre, Sector-43,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122002
PAN: AAACSS123K
(APPELLANT)

Vs

Addl. CIT(A),
Special Range-8,
Room NO. 199A, 1st Floor, C.
R. Building, I.P. Estate
New Delhi-110002
(RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha &
Sh. Bhoowan Dhupar, Adv
Respondent by Sh. Anupam Kant Garg,
CIT(DR)
Date of Hearing 01.10.2020
Date of Pronouncement 14.12.2020

ORDER

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31/10/2018passed under Section 254/143(3) read with Section 144 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by Addl. CIT(A), New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs.27,96,96,74,360/- as against the returned income of Rs.


2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’)/A.O/ Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3,01,87,69,854/-- on account of (i) advertising, marketing, promotion (“AMP”-1T) expenses of – RS. 46,38,28,605/- and (ii) international transactions pertaining to trading segment of Rs. 2,55,49,41,249/-- alleging the same to be not at arm’s length in terms of the provisions of section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”).

GROUNDS AGAINST ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RELATION TO AMP EXPENSES

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/AO/TPO have erred in holding that the AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant in India is an ‘international transaction’ as per the provisions of the Act.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 16 December 2020
Published in GST
Views : 24
downloaded 37 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags