6'^ October, 2015 in Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

378 ITR 581Reported decision2015#17794 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing 6'^ October, 2015 in Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2601/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee by directing the AO to allow the actual transit breakage for the impugned assessment year in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., reported in 378 ITR 581 which has subsequently been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide CC No.12104 of 2016, order dated 11th July, 2017. 10. So far as the disallowance of Rs.50,38,72,290/- being 20% of brand building expenses of Rs.251,93,611,449/- is concerned, the ld.CIT(A), following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06,…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2366/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee by directing the AO to allow the actual transit breakage for the impugned assessment year in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., reported in 378 ITR 581 which has subsequently been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide CC No.12104 of 2016, order dated 11th July, 2017. 10. So far as the disallowance of Rs.50,38,72,290/- being 20% of brand building expenses of Rs.251,93,611,449/- is concerned, the ld.CIT(A), following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06,…

ACIT, CC- 31, New Delhi vs. Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee by directing the AO to allow the actual transit breakage for the impugned assessment year in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., reported in 378 ITR 581 which has subsequently been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide CC No.12104 of 2016, order dated 11th July, 2017. 10. So far as the disallowance of Rs.50,38,72,290/- being 20% of brand building expenses of Rs.251,93,611,449/- is concerned, the ld.CIT(A), following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06,…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 31, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee by directing the AO to allow the actual transit breakage for the impugned assessment year in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., reported in 378 ITR 581 which has subsequently been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide CC No.12104 of 2016, order dated 11th July, 2017. 10. So far as the disallowance of Rs.50,38,72,290/- being 20% of brand building expenses of Rs.251,93,611,449/- is concerned, the ld.CIT(A), following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06,…

Pr CIT Central-3 vs. M/S Seagram Distilleries Pvt.Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA/224/2016HC Delhi06 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 20. + ITA PR GIT CENTRAL-3 Appellant Through: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior Standing counsel and Mr Aamir Aziz, Advocate. versus M/S SEAGRAM DISTILLERIES PVT.LTD Respondent Through: Mr Deepak Chopra and Mr Amit Shrivastava, Advocates. AND 21. + ITA 225/2016 PR. CIT CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior Standing counsel and Mr Aamir Aziz, Advocate. versus M/S SEAGRAM DISTILLERIES PVT.LTD Respondent Through: Mr Deepak Chopra and Mr Amit…

6'^ October, 2015 in Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (378 ITR 581) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax