PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance would be required in view of no liability of deducting tax at source on trade discounts. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard on the issue in dispute. The additional ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5.7 In the result, the recalled matter

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance would be required in view of no liability of deducting tax at source on trade discounts. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard on the issue in dispute. The additional ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5.7 In the result, the recalled matter

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance would be required in view of no liability of deducting tax at source on trade discounts. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard on the issue in dispute. The additional ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5.7 In the result, the recalled matter

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92F, where transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA.] 48. Above section provides that if eligible business receives any services/ goods from other units or business of assessee then if transaction value as recorded in books of account is not corresponding to market value of such goods or services on date

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

92F, where transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA.] 48. Above section provides that if eligible business receives any services/ goods from other units or business of assessee then if transaction value as recorded in books of account is not corresponding to market value of such goods or services on date

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

92F(ii) which defines arm's length price to mean a price "which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions". Since the reference is to "price" and to "uncontrolled conditions" it implicitly brings into play the bright line test. In other words, it emphasises that where the price

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA)PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

92F(ii) which defines arm's length price to mean a price "which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions". Since the reference is to "price" and to "uncontrolled conditions" it implicitly brings into play the bright line test. In other words, it emphasises that where the price

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 6.11. Lastly it is contended on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act is incorrect since while

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA.” The aforesaid definition endorses the meaning of market price‘ explained by the Courts in several decisions, i.e., the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market. In the present case, we note that there

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA.” The aforesaid definition endorses the meaning of market price‘ explained by the Courts in several decisions, i.e., the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market. In the present case, we note that there

NOIDA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

section 92 to 92F) of the Act and disallowance of\ninterest u/s 94B of the Act:\n1.1 As argued by the undersigned

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

disallowance of INR 24,36,362/- computed by the AO as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act. (v) In Grounds No. 37 to 39, the assessee has challenged the addition of INR 2,95,10,993/- on account of Industrial Promotion Assistance (IPA) Subsidy received by the assessee under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme

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

disallowance of INR 24,36,362/- computed by the AO as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act. (v) In Grounds No. 37 to 39, the assessee has challenged the addition of INR 2,95,10,993/- on account of Industrial Promotion Assistance (IPA) Subsidy received by the assessee under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme

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

disallowance of INR 24,36,362/- computed by the AO as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act. (v) In Grounds No. 37 to 39, the assessee has challenged the addition of INR 2,95,10,993/- on account of Industrial Promotion Assistance (IPA) Subsidy received by the assessee under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme

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

disallowance of INR 24,36,362/- computed by the AO as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act. (v) In Grounds No. 37 to 39, the assessee has challenged the addition of INR 2,95,10,993/- on account of Industrial Promotion Assistance (IPA) Subsidy received by the assessee under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme

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

disallowance of INR 24,36,362/- computed by the AO as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act. (v) In Grounds No. 37 to 39, the assessee has challenged the addition of INR 2,95,10,993/- on account of Industrial Promotion Assistance (IPA) Subsidy received by the assessee under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme

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

disallowance of INR 24,36,362/- computed by the AO as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act. (v) In Grounds No. 37 to 39, the assessee has challenged the addition of INR 2,95,10,993/- on account of Industrial Promotion Assistance (IPA) Subsidy received by the assessee under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Disallowance w.r.t. deduction claimed under Section 6,38,13,601 80G of the Act on account of donations given 14. Aggrieved by the adjustments made to the returned income, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 15. As regards impugned adjustments to the deductions eligible under s.80IC & s.80IE of Act in terms of section 80IA(10) r.w.s 92CA

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

section 92F of the Act between appellant and its AE for brand promotion or for establishing a marketing intangible the TPO had no jurisdiction to propose an adjustment on account AMP expenses. 3.2 That on facts and in law the TPO erred in holding and the DRP inter alia erred in upholding/observing that the: (i) Appellant had incurred AMP expenditure