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 (1). 54. Here, in this case, it has been vehemently argued from the side of the assessee that assessee-company had incurred expenditure on AMP to cater to the needs of the customers in the local market and such an expenditure was neither incurred at the instance or behest of overseas AE nor there was any mutual understanding

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 (1). 54. Here, in this case, it has been vehemently argued from the side of the assessee that assessee-company had incurred expenditure on AMP to cater to the needs of the customers in the local market and such an expenditure was neither incurred at the instance or behest of overseas AE nor there was any mutual understanding

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 (1). 54. Here, in this case, it has been vehemently argued from the side of the assessee that assessee-company had incurred expenditure on AMP to cater to the needs of the customers in the local market and such an expenditure was neither incurred at the instance or behest of overseas AE nor there was any mutual understanding

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 (1). 54. Here, in this case, it has been vehemently argued from the side of the assessee that assessee-company had incurred expenditure on AMP to cater to the needs of the customers in the local market and such an expenditure was neither incurred at the instance or behest of overseas AE nor there was any mutual understanding

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 (1). 54. Here, in this case, it has been vehemently argued from the side of the assessee that assessee-company had incurred expenditure on AMP to cater to the needs of the customers in the local market and such an expenditure was neither incurred at the instance or behest of overseas AE nor there was any mutual understanding

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 (1). 54. Here, in this case, it has been vehemently argued from the side of the assessee that assessee-company had incurred expenditure on AMP to cater to the needs of the customers in the local market and such an expenditure was neither incurred at the instance or behest of overseas AE nor there was any mutual understanding

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

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

transfer price” of Rs. 1241.32 crores, which was a mutually negotiated and agreed consideration. Clause 3.2 of the said Agreement provided that the parties would request Kotak, a SEBI registered Category I merchant banker, to prepare a valuation report relating to the fair market value of VIL pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Framework Agreement dated 5.7.2007, to confirm

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SWAROSKI INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2004-05

247 33,149 31,576 25,356 Revenue/Turnover P/L before tax 2,707 2,479 2,401 3,325 1,752 P/L for Period [=Net 2,041 1,868 1,832 2,502 1,245 Income] Cash Flow 2,823 n.a 2,443 n.a 1,726 Total Assets 17,546 16,404 15,867 16,014 14,516 Shareholders Funds

M/S. SWARO vs. KI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHIVS.ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2004-05

247 33,149 31,576 25,356 Revenue/Turnover P/L before tax 2,707 2,479 2,401 3,325 1,752 P/L for Period [=Net 2,041 1,868 1,832 2,502 1,245 Income] Cash Flow 2,823 n.a 2,443 n.a 1,726 Total Assets 17,546 16,404 15,867 16,014 14,516 Shareholders Funds

TECHBOOKS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishitechbooks International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 37, Block-A, Circle-3, Sector-60, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida Noida Pan: Aabct3774A (Appellant) (Respondent)

247,408. The only addition in dispute was addition on account of arm’s-length price as referred to in the order of the learned transfer pricing officer amounting to Rs 164,05,578 on account of interest chargeable on outstanding receivable beyond a specified period of 150 days from associated enterprise. 7. Therefore from the above facts

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 80IC, on a rational and scientific basis. In that view of the matter, the expenses on brand /advertisement, etc. incurred at Head Office were duly allocated to manufacturing units and have been deducted, while computing profits of the unit eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The price realized on sale of the products

KAPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

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

section 234 B and 234 C of the act while completely disregarding the provisions affecting the judicial precedence. 3.0 It is seen that although several grounds of appeal have been raised in the appeal memorandum, the assessee is mainly aggrieved by transfer pricing adjustment made to software development services segment and denial of working capital and Risk Adjustments. 3.1 Submissions

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidy. Director Of Income Tax, Bg Exploration & Production India International Taxation, Ltd, Dehradun Bg House, Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer [ hereinafter referred to as the Ld TPO] for the Assessment Year 2009-10 , raising following grounds of appeal. AY 2009-10 – ITA No. 2227/Del/2014 1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer ('AO/TP0') was wrong in rejecting

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded