PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI vs M/S WRIGLEY INDIA PVT. LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24.04.2025 + ITA 112/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate. versus M/S WRIGLEY INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms Mohna M. Lal, Ms Anushka Arora, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA ORDER % 24.04.2025 VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral) CM APPL. 23898/2025 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 23899/2025 3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 89 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of. ITA 112/2025 5. The Revenue has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘the Tribunal’] in ITA 7440/Del/2017 in respect of assessment year [‘AY’] Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEELAM ITA 112/2025 Page 1 of 3 SHARMA Signing Date:05.05.2025 15:58:32 2012-13. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal [ITA 7440/Del/2017] preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A), whereby the CIT(A) had accepted that the Advertising, Marketing and Promotional [‘AMP’] expenses do not constitute a separate international transaction and it is erroneous to benchmark such expenses by using the Bright Line Test [‘BLT’]. 6. It is material to note that the Transfer Pricing Officer [‘TPO’] had rejected the Assessee’s contention that the AMP expenses are not an international transaction by referring to the articles and information available on the internet, to the effect that the Wrigley Group had undertaken an exercise for strengthening their brands world-wide. 7. The CIT(A) found that in the given facts of the