Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-7, Delhi v. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue challenged the common ITAT order of 12 March 2025 in ITA 9727/Del/2019 and 670/Del/2021 for AYs 2015–16 and 2016–17. Filing delay of 63 days and re-filing delay of 31 days in both appeals were condoned.

Source: PDF p. 2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

Revenue accepted coverage by the taxpayer’s AY 2013–14 and 2014–15 decisions. The reproduced reasoning accepted CUP and royalty comparables from the same US geography and kitchenware/home-furnishing industry; the licence evidence included marketing know-how. Earlier Revenue appeals had been dismissed, rather than never filed.

Source: PDF p. 5

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

Both appeals were dismissed because no substantial question of law arose, following ITA 304/2023 decided 14 March 2024 and ITA 391/2025 decided 9 September 2025.

Source: PDF p. 5

4. OUTCOME

Assessee: the common ITAT relief for AYs 2015–16 and 2016–17 remained intact.

Source: PDF p. 5

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Use the actual comparison record

The reproduced reasoning addresses geography, industry and licence rights, including marketing know-how. It does not approve every foreign royalty agreement or make an industry label alone sufficient for comparability.

Source: PDF p. 5

Prior litigation was decided

Revenue had challenged earlier years and lost. The present decision follows that coverage; describing the earlier orders as accepted without challenge would materially misstate the litigation history.

Source: PDF p. 5

Separate method from comparable selection

CUP was undisputed in the reproduced ITAT analysis. The judgment does not establish that CUP must be used for every royalty transaction or prescribe a universally acceptable royalty rate.

Source: PDF p. 5