LG Electronics v. ACIT

22 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2013#5003 most cited

What is LG Electronics v. ACIT authority for?

The Special Bench decision in LG Electronics v. ACIT affirmed the applicability of the 'Bright Line Test' for determining international transactions related to advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

LG Electronics v. ACIT · 22 ITR 1 · Special Bench · Bright Line Test · AMP expenses · international transaction · transfer pricing · deemed dividend · section 2(22)(e) · closely held company

Issues it is cited on

closely held companysection 47accumulated profitssection 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)beneficial ownerdirect tax vivad se vishwasliable to taxsection 56escapement of incomevivad se vishwas

Judgments citing LG Electronics v. ACIT

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Minal Constractors and Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 646/CHNY/2023[2021-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…rt held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 22 ITR 1 (SC), The Hon'ble High Court observed that the word "shareholder" followed by the expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder and that the said expression imposes a further condition that the shareholder has also to be a beneficial ow…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Meadow Infrastructure Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 645/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…rt held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 22 ITR 1 (SC), The Hon'ble High Court observed that the word "shareholder" followed by the expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder and that the said expression imposes a further condition that the shareholder has also to be a beneficial ow…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Mac Quality Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 644/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…rt held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 22 ITR 1 (SC), The Hon'ble High Court observed that the word "shareholder" followed by the expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder and that the said expression imposes a further condition that the shareholder has also to be a beneficial ow…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukilanstructurals Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 643/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…rt held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 22 ITR 1 (SC), The Hon'ble High Court observed that the word "shareholder" followed by the expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder and that the said expression imposes a further condition that the shareholder has also to be a beneficial ow…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

…rt held that the expression "shareholder" has to be construed to mean a 'registered shareholder' in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CP Sarathy Mudaliar (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC) and CIT vs. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 22 ITR 1 (SC), The Hon'ble High Court observed that the word "shareholder" followed by the expression "being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares" does not in any way alter the position that the shareholder has to be a registered shareholder and that the said expression imposes a further condition that the shareholder has also to be a beneficial ow…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

ITA 715/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 115J

…has been denied consideration, wherein such deductions has been denied holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposits (in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the de…

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

ITA 654/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 115J

…has been denied consideration, wherein such deductions has been denied holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposits (in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the de…

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

ITA 653/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 115J

…has been denied consideration, wherein such deductions has been denied holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposits (in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the de…

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

ITA 1423/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 115J

…has been denied consideration, wherein such deductions has been denied holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposits (in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the de…

Everest Industries Ltd, Noida vs. Dy CIT Cirlce-1, Thane

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

ITA 7794/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 115J

…has been denied consideration, wherein such deductions has been denied holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposits (in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the de…

Everest Industries Ltd, Noida vs. Dy CIT Cirlce-1, Thane

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

ITA 7793/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 115J

…has been denied consideration, wherein such deductions has been denied holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China holding to be "capital" in nature. In Shell Company of China Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposit Ltd [22 ITR 1(A)], it was held that "gains arising on deposits (in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the deposits were in foreign currency) are capital receipts as the de…

Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 492/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.351/PUN/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-14, Pune. Vs. M/s. Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.934 to 937, Village- Sanaswadi, Tal. Shirur, Pune- 412208. PAN : AAACK4647E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.492/PUN/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Kimberly Clark Lever Vs. DCIT, Circle-14, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., C/o Mr. Suryakant Pande, Great Eastern Plaza, Yerwada, Pune- 411006. PAN : AAACK46…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 351/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.351/PUN/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-14, Pune. Vs. M/s. Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.934 to 937, Village- Sanaswadi, Tal. Shirur, Pune- 412208. PAN : AAACK4647E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.492/PUN/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Kimberly Clark Lever Vs. DCIT, Circle-14, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., C/o Mr. Suryakant Pande, Great Eastern Plaza, Yerwada, Pune- 411006. PAN : AAACK46…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 576/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…or India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) which is authored by one us i.e. Accountant Member wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal after referring to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 22 ITR 1 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT, 381 ITR 117 and held as under :- “19. In the present case, the assessee-company imports the lens from its foreign AE and after some processing, sells the products on its own. However, the amount o…

Kimberly Clark Lever P.Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…or India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) which is authored by one us i.e. Accountant Member wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal after referring to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 22 ITR 1 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT, 381 ITR 117 and held as under :- “19. In the present case, the assessee-company imports the lens from its foreign AE and after some processing, sells the products on its own. However, the amount o…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…prevailing understanding as to the applicability of the Bright Line Test, holding that the AMP expenses were subject to adjustment. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) affirmed this view. In the meanwhile, the Special Bench had in LG Electronics v. ACIT (2013) 22 ITR 1 (SB) enunciated and affirmed the Bright Line Test rule. That view was subsequently overruled by this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118. The ITAT in this case has remitted the entire matter for reconsideration to the TPO. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. In Le Passage to India…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…prevailing understanding as to the applicability of the Bright Line Test, holding that the AMP expenses were subject to adjustment. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) affirmed this view. In the meanwhile, the Special Bench had in LG Electronics v. ACIT (2013) 22 ITR 1 (SB) enunciated and affirmed the Bright Line Test rule. That view was subsequently overruled by this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118. The ITAT in this case has remitted the entire matter for reconsideration to the TPO. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. In Le Passage to India…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…prevailing understanding as to the applicability of the Bright Line Test, holding that the AMP expenses were subject to adjustment. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) affirmed this view. In the meanwhile, the Special Bench had in LG Electronics v. ACIT (2013) 22 ITR 1 (SB) enunciated and affirmed the Bright Line Test rule. That view was subsequently overruled by this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118. The ITAT in this case has remitted the entire matter for reconsideration to the TPO. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. In Le Passage to India…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…prevailing understanding as to the applicability of the Bright Line Test, holding that the AMP expenses were subject to adjustment. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) affirmed this view. In the meanwhile, the Special Bench had in LG Electronics v. ACIT (2013) 22 ITR 1 (SB) enunciated and affirmed the Bright Line Test rule. That view was subsequently overruled by this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118. The ITAT in this case has remitted the entire matter for reconsideration to the TPO. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. In Le Passage to India…

M/S. Pepsi Foods Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…prevailing understanding as to the applicability of the Bright Line Test, holding that the AMP expenses were subject to adjustment. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) affirmed this view. In the meanwhile, the Special Bench had in LG Electronics v. ACIT (2013) 22 ITR 1 (SB) enunciated and affirmed the Bright Line Test rule. That view was subsequently overruled by this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118. The ITAT in this case has remitted the entire matter for reconsideration to the TPO. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. In Le Passage to India…

LG Electronics v. ACIT (22 ITR 1) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax