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

transfer pricing adjustment) on the ground that such expenditure resulted in an enduring benefit to the Appellant. 7.1 That the Hon’ble DRP erred in confirming the disallowance on account of brand expenses in complete ignorance of the fact that the disallowance had been deleted by the CIT(A) in the orders passed in appellant’s own case

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 292C of the Act. 3. That the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) have erred on facts and in law in making

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. MAYFAIR RESORTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

price paid for the property; (d) Section 69B does not permit an inference to be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the transaction that the purchaser of the property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in this books of account, because such an inference could be very subjective and could lead to the taxation of notional or fictitious

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

price as mentioned in the registered sale deed. Further, the provision of section 69 cannot be invoked against the buyers only on presumption, in the absence of any evidence of money actually paid over & above the registered sale deed had been brought on record. (vii) The above judgments of various courts had held that the presumption available in section 292C

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

price as mentioned in the registered sale deed. Further, the provision of section 69 cannot be invoked against the buyers only on presumption, in the absence of any evidence of money actually paid over & above the registered sale deed had been brought on record. (vii) The above judgments of various courts had held that the presumption available in section 292C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer and as discussed earlier, no case of any tax- evasion was detected. Contrary to the allegation and doubt of the assessing officer, all the transactions with the overseas companies which were doubted by the Assessing Officer was found to be genuine and carried out at an arm’s length price. Moreover, in one of the overseas companies

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer and as discussed earlier, no case of any tax- evasion was detected. Contrary to the allegation and doubt of the assessing officer, all the transactions with the overseas companies which were doubted by the Assessing Officer was found to be genuine and carried out at an arm’s length price. Moreover, in one of the overseas companies

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer and as discussed earlier, no case of any tax- evasion was detected. Contrary to the allegation and doubt of the assessing officer, all the transactions with the overseas companies which were doubted by the Assessing Officer was found to be genuine and carried out at an arm’s length price. Moreover, in one of the overseas companies

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer and as discussed earlier, no case of any tax- evasion was detected. Contrary to the allegation and doubt of the assessing officer, all the transactions with the overseas companies which were doubted by the Assessing Officer was found to be genuine and carried out at an arm’s length price. Moreover, in one of the overseas companies

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer and as discussed earlier, no case of any tax- evasion was detected. Contrary to the allegation and doubt of the assessing officer, all the transactions with the overseas companies which were doubted by the Assessing Officer was found to be genuine and carried out at an arm’s length price. Moreover, in one of the overseas companies

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer and as discussed earlier, no case of any tax- evasion was detected. Contrary to the allegation and doubt of the assessing officer, all the transactions with the overseas companies which were doubted by the Assessing Officer was found to be genuine and carried out at an arm’s length price. Moreover, in one of the overseas companies

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer and as discussed earlier, no case of any tax- evasion was detected. Contrary to the allegation and doubt of the assessing officer, all the transactions with the overseas companies which were doubted by the Assessing Officer was found to be genuine and carried out at an arm’s length price. Moreover, in one of the overseas companies

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

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Gosain[A.Y 2007-08] M/S Pernod Ricard [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, [Formerly Known As Central Circle -31 Seagram India Pvt Ltd New Delhi 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi Pan: Aaacs 4781 P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Smt. Rashi Khanna, Adv. Shri Yojit Pareek, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit-Dr

transfer price as the arm‘s length price. Then to make a comparison of a horizontal item without segregation would be impermissible.” 21. In light of the aforementioned discussion, we find that the TPO has considered this at length and has submitted a report dated 26.2.2019. The said report can be summarised in the following chart: S.no Asst Year Assessee

SHRI BHARAT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

price, i.e. Rs.83,50,000/- [50% of Rs.1,67,00,000/- (Rs.2,02,00,000/- less Rs.34,00,000/-) was added in the hands of the appellant. 7.1 In the given facts and circumstances, the probability of preponderance weigh more in favour of revenue. The appellant has not denied that the said deed writer was not the one who prepared

SHRI BHARAT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

price, i.e. Rs.83,50,000/- [50% of Rs.1,67,00,000/- (Rs.2,02,00,000/- less Rs.34,00,000/-) was added in the hands of the appellant. 7.1 In the given facts and circumstances, the probability of preponderance weigh more in favour of revenue. The appellant has not denied that the said deed writer was not the one who prepared

M/S MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transferred to a new customer. In that scenario, it would be justified on the part of the assessee to reflect the receipts as a liability in the balance sheet. But in absence of any details from the side of the assessee as and when these security deposit either got refunded/ adjusted, it partakes the character of income in the year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transferred to a new customer. In that scenario, it would be justified on the part of the assessee to reflect the receipts as a liability in the balance sheet. But in absence of any details from the side of the assessee as and when these security deposit either got refunded/ adjusted, it partakes the character of income in the year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transferred to a new customer. In that scenario, it would be justified on the part of the assessee to reflect the receipts as a liability in the balance sheet. But in absence of any details from the side of the assessee as and when these security deposit either got refunded/ adjusted, it partakes the character of income in the year