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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS), advance tax and self- assessment tax amounting to INR 84,90,70,726/- not given by the AO. (vii) Ground No. 36 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. G. I.T.A. No. 6537/DEL/2016 pertaining to AY 2012-13, the assessee company has raised the following issues

M/S. PEPSI FOODS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS), advance tax and self- assessment tax amounting to INR 84,90,70,726/- not given by the AO. (vii) Ground No. 36 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. G. I.T.A. No. 6537/DEL/2016 pertaining to AY 2012-13, the assessee company has raised the following issues

PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS), advance tax and self- assessment tax amounting to INR 84,90,70,726/- not given by the AO. (vii) Ground No. 36 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. G. I.T.A. No. 6537/DEL/2016 pertaining to AY 2012-13, the assessee company has raised the following issues

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS), advance tax and self- assessment tax amounting to INR 84,90,70,726/- not given by the AO. (vii) Ground No. 36 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. G. I.T.A. No. 6537/DEL/2016 pertaining to AY 2012-13, the assessee company has raised the following issues

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

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

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Re: Consequential Grounds 5. That the Ld. AO / CIT(A) erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 6. That

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

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

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Re: Consequential Grounds 5. That the Ld. AO / CIT(A) erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 6. That

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

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

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Re: Consequential Grounds 5. That the Ld. AO / CIT(A) erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 6. That

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

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

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Re: Consequential Grounds 5. That the Ld. AO / CIT(A) erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 6. That

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

TDS under section 195 of the Act. 11.1 The Assessee during the course of the argument of this appeal, with regard to selection of comparables for determination of Arm‟s Length Price, only agitated/pressed the grounds relating to inclusion of (i) TCS E-serve Ltd. (in short „TCS‟) and (ii) eClerx Services Ltd. (in short „eClerx‟) and for making

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 92C (2) of the Act. 54. In respect of Class II (Distribution of consumer electronics, home appliances and other IT and Telecom Products) segment, the Appellant had adopted Resale Price Method (RPM) and had chosen 5 comparables in its transfer pricing documentation with a mean margin of 6.45%. The Ld. TPO rejected RPM and chose TNMM as the most

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 92C (2) of the Act. 54. In respect of Class II (Distribution of consumer electronics, home appliances and other IT and Telecom Products) segment, the Appellant had adopted Resale Price Method (RPM) and had chosen 5 comparables in its transfer pricing documentation with a mean margin of 6.45%. The Ld. TPO rejected RPM and chose TNMM as the most

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD.,, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 92C (2) of the Act. 54. In respect of Class II (Distribution of consumer electronics, home appliances and other IT and Telecom Products) segment, the Appellant had adopted Resale Price Method (RPM) and had chosen 5 comparables in its transfer pricing documentation with a mean margin of 6.45%. The Ld. TPO rejected RPM and chose TNMM as the most

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 92C (2) of the Act. 54. In respect of Class II (Distribution of consumer electronics, home appliances and other IT and Telecom Products) segment, the Appellant had adopted Resale Price Method (RPM) and had chosen 5 comparables in its transfer pricing documentation with a mean margin of 6.45%. The Ld. TPO rejected RPM and chose TNMM as the most

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 92C (2) of the Act. 54. In respect of Class II (Distribution of consumer electronics, home appliances and other IT and Telecom Products) segment, the Appellant had adopted Resale Price Method (RPM) and had chosen 5 comparables in its transfer pricing documentation with a mean margin of 6.45%. The Ld. TPO rejected RPM and chose TNMM as the most

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 92C (2) of the Act. 54. In respect of Class II (Distribution of consumer electronics, home appliances and other IT and Telecom Products) segment, the Appellant had adopted Resale Price Method (RPM) and had chosen 5 comparables in its transfer pricing documentation with a mean margin of 6.45%. The Ld. TPO rejected RPM and chose TNMM as the most

SANSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 92C (2) of the Act. 54. In respect of Class II (Distribution of consumer electronics, home appliances and other IT and Telecom Products) segment, the Appellant had adopted Resale Price Method (RPM) and had chosen 5 comparables in its transfer pricing documentation with a mean margin of 6.45%. The Ld. TPO rejected RPM and chose TNMM as the most

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 92C (2) of the Act. 54. In respect of Class II (Distribution of consumer electronics, home appliances and other IT and Telecom Products) segment, the Appellant had adopted Resale Price Method (RPM) and had chosen 5 comparables in its transfer pricing documentation with a mean margin of 6.45%. The Ld. TPO rejected RPM and chose TNMM as the most

GLOBAL LOGIC INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 92B by treating the continued debt balance as an international transaction. Moreover when the taxpayer is debt free company, there is no question of charging any interest or receivables. This issue has also been decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT-1 vs. M/s. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 379/2016 order dated