Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal dismisses Revenue appeals, partly allows assessee appeals. Decision on 15.05.2020.

        Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi And (Vice-Versa)

        Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Account of Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotional (AMP) Expenses.
        2. Disallowance of Provision for Transit Breakage.
        3. Disallowance of Brand Building Expenses.
        4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of Tax from Reimbursement of Trade Scheme to Promoters.
        5. Levy of Interest under Section 234B.
        6. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Account of AMP Expenses:
        The primary issue was whether the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee constituted an international transaction. The TPO had proposed an upward adjustment of Rs. 57,83,00,000/- in the manufacturing segment and Rs. 5,03,33,013/- in the distribution segment. The CIT(A) deleted the adjustment in the manufacturing segment, noting the absence of any directive from the parent company to incur such expenses and the lack of evidence towards an understanding, arrangement, or action in concert. The CIT(A) upheld the existence of an international transaction in the distribution segment but rejected the TPO's methodology of using the Bright Line Test (BLT) for benchmarking. The Tribunal, following precedents, held that the existence of an international transaction must be established with tangible evidence and not inferred merely based on AMP expenditure. The Tribunal concluded that no addition on account of AMP expenditure was warranted.

        2. Disallowance of Provision for Transit Breakage:
        The AO had made an addition of Rs. 6,32,58,960/- on account of provision for transit breakage. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the actual transit breakage for the impugned assessment year, following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal upheld this direction.

        3. Disallowance of Brand Building Expenses:
        The AO had disallowed 20% of the brand building expenses amounting to Rs. 50,38,72,290/- under Section 37(1), treating it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, following the Tribunal’s order in the assessee’s own case for earlier years and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order, noting that the issue had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in previous years.

        4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of Tax from Reimbursement of Trade Scheme to Promoters:
        The AO had disallowed Rs. 63,24,54,323/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax under Section 194H. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case, restored the issue to the AO for verification of whether the payments were in the nature of reimbursements and allowed the additional evidence filed by the assessee for verification.

        5. Levy of Interest under Section 234B:
        The Tribunal held that the levy of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and consequential in nature. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.

        6. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
        The Tribunal noted that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was premature and accordingly dismissed this ground raised by the assessee.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and partly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2020.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found