TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

House, 15 Appeal Centre (NFAC), Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACT3770D Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv Ms. Tanya, Adv Ms. Shivani, Adv Revenue by: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, AM 1. Assessee M/s. Tupperware Aker Powergas

FUJITSU INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Fujitsu India P. Ltd., Vs National Faceless Assessment Rectangale-1, D-4, Centre, District Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aaacf4170D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate, Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar & Shri Kaskaran Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 Order

house hold product but is engaged in trading of IT products and provision of IT solutions and services in India. Which is a niche area and restricted cutomer base. Therefore that all the more needed to put on record on the basis of some material that AMP expenses were integral part of assessee’s business functions 11 to create some

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IP ESTATE NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-21

House, Centre, 15 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. through Connaught Place, DCIT, Circle 25(1), New Delhi-110001. New Delhi. PAN: AAACT3770 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee represented by : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv.; Ms. Shivani, Advocate & Shri Shobhit Tiwari, Advocate Department represented by : Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement

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.:

Housing Ltd. 1.00 12. Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion Organization 0.8 13. Usha Breco Ltd. 4.97 14. Vista Entertainment Ltd. 3.16 15. Adrenalin Esystem Ltd. 6.74 16. Interworld Digital Ltd. 0.10 17. NSE IT Ltd. 0.01 18. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd. 2.03 19. Nucleus Software Exports Ltd. 1.03 20. Powersoft Global Solutions Ltd. 0.35 12 21. Supertech Solutions

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

house legal counsel and any other experienced employees to assist the licensee in the manufacturing, sales, advertisement and promotion of the products and in solving any technological or commercial problem that may arise during the manufacturing and sales of the products. 28. He again referred to clause 9 of the said Agreement which provides that in connection to the products

PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

92F and sub-section (1) of section 92B of the Act, it could be inferred that Transfer Pricing 9 Perfetti Van Melle India, Manesar regulations would be applicable to any ‘transaction’, being an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, inter alia, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property or any other transaction having bearing

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

House Circle 2(2) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACA 0364 L [Appellant] [Respondent] Assessee by : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Revenue by : Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 29.10.2018 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

92F (v), an international transaction could include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, this cannot be a matter of inference. There has to be some tangible evidence on record to show that two parties have "acted in concert". XXX 37. The provisions under Chapter X do envisage a 'separate entity concept'. In other words, there cannot be a presumption