Nestle India Ltd. v. DCIT

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

…twork (India) (P.) Ltd., 368 ITR 738 (Bombay-HC) and in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Star India P. Ltd. in Income Tax appeal No.165 of 2009 dated 24.03.2009 and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Nestle India Ltd. vs. DCIT, 111 TTJ 498 (Delhi). 10. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the issue of computation of TP adjustments should be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 11. In the rejoinder, the ld. Sr. Counsel vehemently opposed th…

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

…twork (India) (P.) Ltd., 368 ITR 738 (Bombay-HC) and in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Star India P. Ltd. in Income Tax appeal No.165 of 2009 dated 24.03.2009 and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Nestle India Ltd. vs. DCIT, 111 TTJ 498 (Delhi). 10. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the issue of computation of TP adjustments should be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 11. In the rejoinder, the ld. Sr. Counsel vehemently opposed th…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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:

…given. The onus is on the revenue to provide evidence supporting the tangible benefits derived by the AE while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. In this regard reliance is placed on the order of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Nestle India Limited 111 TTJ 498.  that the assessee is also paying royalty for the use of trademark. Thus, any entity which is paying consideration for use of trademark would use the trademark on the products else why would it pay the consideration for use of the trademark.  That if any, comparison is to be made, and then it should be between A&M expenses to sales ratio of th…