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

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

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

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

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

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

TDS 5188 Sundry Balances written off 70 Net Profit 170416 The assessee JV had filed its ITR declaring total income of Rs. 1,75,600/- (Rs. 1,70,416/- plus Rs.5,188/- being the amount disallowable). The AO had passed the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) in the status of AOP, determining the total income at Rs. 1

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

TDS 5188 Sundry Balances written off 70 Net Profit 170416 The assessee JV had filed its ITR declaring total income of Rs. 1,75,600/- (Rs. 1,70,416/- plus Rs.5,188/- being the amount disallowable). The AO had passed the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) in the status of AOP, determining the total income at Rs. 1

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

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

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. 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

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

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. 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

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

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and void ab-initio. Transfer Pricing addition made on account

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

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and void ab-initio. Transfer Pricing addition made on account