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

Section 92B and that the onus of proving the existence of an international transaction was on the Department. At this point, the he submitted that the reliance placed by the TPO on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was completely misplaced. The TPO had relied upon the said

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

Section 92B and that the onus of proving the existence of an international transaction was on the Department. At this point, the he submitted that the reliance placed by the TPO on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was completely misplaced. The TPO had relied upon the said

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

Section 92B and that the onus of proving the existence of an international transaction was on the Department. At this point, the he submitted that the reliance placed by the TPO on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was completely misplaced. The TPO had relied upon the said

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

Section 92B and that the onus of proving the existence of an international transaction was on the Department. At this point, the he submitted that the reliance placed by the TPO on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was completely misplaced. The TPO had relied upon the said

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

Section 92B and that the onus of proving the existence of an international transaction was on the Department. At this point, the he submitted that the reliance placed by the TPO on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was completely misplaced. The TPO had relied upon the said

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

Section 92B and that the onus of proving the existence of an international transaction was on the Department. At this point, the he submitted that the reliance placed by the TPO on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was completely misplaced. The TPO had relied upon the said

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

68 taxmann.com 8 ; [2016-TII-6-HC-DEL-INTL] also, the amendment in the definition of international transaction under section 92B

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

68 taxmann.com 8 ; [2016-TII-6-HC-DEL-INTL] also, the amendment in the definition of international transaction under section 92B

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

68 taxmann.com 8 ; [2016-TII-6-HC-DEL-INTL] also, the amendment in the definition of international transaction under section 92B

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.:

92B and a “transaction” as per provisions of section 92F between the applicant and its AE for brand promotion. DRP also upheld the action of TPO in applying Transfer pricing provision in benchmarking the alleged transaction of brand promotion of marketing intangibles on a stand- alone basis by applying the Bright Line Method. DRP, however, held that the comparable

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

92B to 92F, the sine qua non for commencing the transfer pricing exercise is to show the existence of an international transaction. The next step is to determine the price of such transaction. The third step would be to determine the ALP by applying one of the five price discovery methods specified in Section 92C. The fourth step would

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

92B to 92F, the sine qua non for commencing the transfer pricing exercise is to show the existence of an international transaction. The next step is to determine the price of such transaction. The third step would be to determine the ALP by applying one of the five price discovery methods specified in Section 92C. The fourth step would

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure