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

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, vs. SINOSTEEL INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly the grounds of the appeal by the assessee stand allowed.” 13. Quantum appeal on the question of internal comparable has been admitted by the High Court. This is an admitted position. 14. The reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to impose penalty for concealment has been quoted in entirety. It shows

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:

92B of the Act with Rule 10 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Hence, the AO invoked provisions of Section 271G and levied penalty @ 2% of the value of the transactions which the ld. CIT(A) confirmed. 12. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. It is an undisputable fact that during

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:

92B of the Act with Rule 10 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Hence, the AO invoked provisions of Section 271G and levied penalty @ 2% of the value of the transactions which the ld. CIT(A) confirmed. 12. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. It is an undisputable fact that during

M/S. BACARDI INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant, which is bad in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Bacardi Ltd. is a Bermuda based holding company while the operations are controlled by Bacardi International Ltd. The assessee “Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd” (BIPL) is an AE by virtue of common capital

NOKIA INDIA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7244/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 807, New Delhi House, Special Range-6, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn9141L Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surenderpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the revenue: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in determining the taxable income of the Appellant for the subject assessment year

M/S. GAP INTERNATIONAL SOURCING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

92B of the Act then for the purposes of sub-section (c) of section 271(1) the said amount added or disallowed would be deemed to represent such income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Exception is carved out only in the case where the assessee proves that the price charged

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TIANJIN TIANSHI INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2967/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd., War-25(3), 10, Community Centre, Basant New Delhi Lok, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct5611J Assessee By : Sh. Upvan Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr 8 Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2020

u/s 271(1)(c) has been levied by the Assessing Officer and the penalty order has been passed on 21.03.2012. CIT(A) on Penalty: 9. While deleting the penalty, the ld. CIT (A) held that the assessee was under belief that the purchase from the PE of the foreign AE would not attract the transfer pricing provisions. It was held

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.” 11. The first assessment order out of the aforementioned batch of appeals was passed for AY 2007-08 and therefore the said assessment year is taken

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.” 11. The first assessment order out of the aforementioned batch of appeals was passed for AY 2007-08 and therefore the said assessment year is taken

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.” 11. The first assessment order out of the aforementioned batch of appeals was passed for AY 2007-08 and therefore the said assessment year is taken

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HONDA TRADING CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is treated as infructuous owing to the adjudication on merits of the case

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 747/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Vs M/S Honda Trading Corporation Circle-11(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Sigma Centre, A- New Delhi 27, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch5556J

u/s 271(1)(c). Regarding the question of whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Ld. DR argued that once an assessment has been done, whether it is best judgment or otherwise, the figure assessed represents the income of the assessee hence there is a failure to furnish the correct

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

92B of theAct. We notice that section 92C(1) of the Act postulates arms length price computation by applying six methods namely; comparable un-controlled price method (CUP), re-sale price Vodafone Idea Ltd method (RPM), cost method (CPM), profit split method (PSM), transactional net margin method (TNMM) and the residuary one such other methods as may be prescribed