maruti suzuki indian v india transfer pricing office
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Maruti Suzuki Indian V. India Transfer Pricing Office

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 6

Maruti Suzuki Indian V. India Transfer Pricing Office - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Maruti Suzuki Indian V. India Transfer Pricing Office. Suzuki Royalty TP case –Facts . Maruti Suzuki Motor Corporation (“Suzuki”), a Japanese company, owned over 50% of Maruti Suzuki India (“ Maruti ”), an Indian company.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Maruti Suzuki Indian V. India Transfer Pricing Office' - marli

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
suzuki royalty tp case facts
Suzuki Royalty TP case –Facts
  • Maruti Suzuki Motor Corporation (“Suzuki”), a Japanese company, owned over 50% of Maruti Suzuki India (“Maruti”), an Indian company.
  • Suzuki licensed the brand and technical know-how to Maruti to use it in India, in return, Maruti paid Suziki a lump-sum royalty and royalties based on the FOB value of certain components that Maruti will use to manufacture using the technology provided by Suzuki.
  • Suzuki didn’t have to make any payment to Maruti
  • India’s tax authority (TPO) stated that Maruti should be compensated for use of the Suzuki brand on the Maruti automobiles
  • High Court of Delhi found in favor of the defendantMaruti and rejected the TPO’s arguments
the arguments
The Arguments
  • Tax Authority\'s Arguments:
  • The use of the Suzuki brand on Maruti automobiles effectively constituted the sale of the Maruti brand to Suzuki
  • Maruti was owed an arm’s-length royalty for the piggybacking, use of the Maruti brand on the co-branded trademark “Maruti Suzuki,” and impairment of the Maruti brand.

Taxpayer\'s Arguments:

  • Maruti asserted that there had been no transfer of the Maruti brand
  • Maruti argued that by using Suzuki’s trademark it had received a large benefit while Suzuki received no benefit.
  • Maruti demonstrated that its advertising expenses over the 13 years were commensurate with comparable companies’ advertising expenses and its royalty-to sales ratio was lower than other companies
high court of delhi decision
High Court of Delhi Decision
  • High Court of Delhi stated that the use of the Marutiname was within the discretion of Maruti and not granted to Suzuki or contained in any legal agreement
  • The court also found that Maruti was justified in entering into the License Agreement and paying an appropriate royalty to Suzuki for the use of its trademark
  • This case illustrates the Indian tax authorities\' application of marketing intangibles and the application of international standards
  • Maruti Suzuki suggests the increasing attention from tax authorities over the value of marketing intangibles
  • This case demonstrates what data should be used for benchmarking when dealing with India tax authority

About IPR Plaza

IPR Plaza is a web-based platform that bridges the gap between IP law, accounting, tax, transfer pricing and valuation by providing general and profession-specific information on intangibles, as well as, quantifiable valuation models. IPR Plaza is empowered by different leading IP advisory firms. IPR Plaza is headquartered in the Netherlands with representation in other major countries.