BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS AND WINE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 1164/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2026AY 2011-1211 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee imported finished goods from its Associated Enterprises (AE) for resale in India. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the assessee's use of the Resale Price Method (RPM) and applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), proposing an addition for transfer pricing adjustment.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a mere routine distributor and had not added any value to the imported goods. Therefore, the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction, as confirmed by various High Court decisions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the determination of the most appropriate method (MAM) for benchmarking the international transaction of import of finished goods. The secondary issues involved the levy of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 234B,Section 234D,Section 271G,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv, Ms. Kashish Gupta,CA
For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT-DR
Hearing: 01/04/2026

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

1.

The appeal in ITA No.1164/Del/2023 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 21.02.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 17.04.2015 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2.

Ground No. 1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.

3.

Ground Nos. 2.1 to 2.4 raised by the assessee are challenging the transfer pricing adjustment made by the ld TPO in the s

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,666 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →