Dismissed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL)-3 v. Pernod Ricard India Pvt.Ltd.

Delhi HC20 May 2024ITA/272/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, in common orders for multiple Income Tax Appeals, dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue against the ITAT. The Court held that since AMP expenditure was incurred for India-specific brands, no adjustment was warranted against the assessee.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed; the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was upheld.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL)-3 Vs… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~63 to 72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 272/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

¶4

(CENTRAL)-3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along with Ms. Priya Sarkar, Ms. Maadhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr. Ujjawal Jain, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT.LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Anmol Anand, Ms. Priya Tandon and Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Advs

¶7

¶8

ITA 273/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along with Ms. Priya Sarkar, Ms. Maadhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr. Ujjawal Jain, Adv.

¶9

versus

¶10

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Anmol Anand, Ms. Priya Tandon and Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Advs

¶11

¶12

- ITA 872/2019

¶13

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-3, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along with Ms. Priya Sarkar, Ms.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/05/2024 at 12:12:08

¶16

Maadhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr. Ujjawal Jain, Adv.

¶17

versus

¶18

M/S PERNOD RICARD (INDIA) PVT. LT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Anmol Anand, Ms. Priya Tandon and Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Advs

¶19

¶20

ITA 49/2020

¶21

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -3 ND

¶22

	..... Appellant
Through:	Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along
	with Ms. Priya Sarkar, Ms.
	Maadhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr.
	Ujjawal Jain, Adv.

¶23

versus

¶24

M/S PERNOD RICARD IND	IA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through:	Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr.
	Anmol Anand, Ms. Priya
	Tandon and Ms. Sheetal
	Kandpal, Advs

¶25

¶26

+ ITA 50/2020

¶27

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -3, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along with Ms. Priya Sarkar, Ms. Maadhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr. Ujjawal Jain, Adv.

¶28

versus

¶29

M/S. PERNOD RICARD (INDIA) PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr.

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/05/2024 at 12:12:08

¶32

Anmol Anand, Ms. Priya Tandon and Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Advs

¶33

¶34

ITA 51/2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along with Ms. Priya Sarkar, Ms. Maadhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr. Ujjawal Jain, Adv.

¶35

versus

¶36

M/S. PERNOD RICARD (INDIA) PVT . LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Anmol Anand, Ms. Priya Tandon and Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Advs

¶37

¶38

- ITA 54/2020

¶39

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-3, NEW DLEHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along with Ms. Priya Sarkar, Ms. Maadhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr. Ujjawal Jain, Adv.

¶40

versus

¶41

M/S. PERNOD RICARD (INDIA) PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Anmol Anand, Ms. Priya Tandon and Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Advs

¶42

¶43

- ITA 165/2021 PRINCIPAL COM0MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

¶44

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/05/2024 at 12:12:08

¶46

(CENTRAL) – 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along with Ms. Priya Sarkar, Ms. Maadhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr. Ujjawal Jain, Adv. versus PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Anmol Anand, Ms. Priya Tandon and Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Advs

¶47

¶48

ITA 166/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along with Ms. Priya Sarkar, Ms. Maadhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr. Ujjawal Jain, Adv. versus

¶49

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Anmol Anand, Ms. Priya Tandon and Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Advs 72 + ITA 83/2022 PRINCIPAL COM0MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along with Ms. Priya Sarkar, Ms. Maadhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr. Ujjawal Jain, Adv.

¶50

This is a digitally signed order.

¶51

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/05/2024 at 12:12:08

¶52

versus

¶53

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Anmol Anand, Ms. Priya Tandon and Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Advs

¶54

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶55

O R D E R % 20.05.2024 ITA 272/2018 ITA 273/2018

¶56

The Principal Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ ITAT ”] dated 02 May 2017 and has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration:

¶57

“A Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts of the case by relying on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the basic finding of the TPO that the AMP spend incurred by the assesse is actually developing the brand owned by the foreign AE?

¶58

B. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts of the case by deleting the brand building expenditure when the TPO has established that the assesse has non-exclusive rights to use the trademarks within the territory of India and any marketing intangible developed could be utilised by third party manufacturers/bottlers licensed by the foreign AE?

¶59

C. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts of the case by upholding the partial relief given by the CIT(A) to assesse in relation to transfer pricing adjustment in the marketing support service segment, without having regard to the fact that the expenses incurred by the assesse on behalf of its AE, though reimbursable, ought to be included in the cost base for determining the PLI?

¶60

This is a digitally signed order.

¶61

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/05/2024 at 12:12:08

¶62

D. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in law and facts of the case by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,89,55,070/- on account of brand expenditure without appreciating that assesse enjoys an enduring benefit on account of advertisement expenses incurred and hence the same ought to have been capitalised?”

¶63

However, we note that insofar as the aspect of Advertising, Marketing and Promotional [“ AMP ”] expenses are concerned, the ITAT has in Paras 5.5 and 5.6 held as follows:

¶64

“ 5.5 We have heard the rival submissions. In our considered opinion the crux of the matter is that we find force in the contentions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that no adjustment was warranted on the facts of the present case since the brands for which the AMP expenditure was incurred were India specific. This categorical finding has been recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in Para 10.9 of his order for AY 2004-05 and no evidence has been brought on record by the Ld. DR to repel this factual finding. Given ·the above, we find no force in the contentions of the DR that the issue be remanded back to the Ld. TPO for a fresh consideration. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the jurisdictional High Court has time and again directed the Tribunal to apply the law as laid down by the High Court and adjudicate the matter. Given the fact that the AMP spend was India specific as the said brands were also India specific we find no force in the contentions of the revenue that any benefit could have arisen to the non-resident AE. If the product manufactured and sold by the assesse is India specific then it cannot' be said that any benefit could have accrued to the AE on account the AMP spend in India in respect of such brands.

¶65

5.6 Further the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has also submitted that the assessee is a full risk bearing manufacturer in India and as such no adjustment is warranted on account of AMP expenditure since the benefit of such expenditure accrues to the assessee only. However, we are not opining on this issue at this stage since on the facts we have already held that where the products are India specific there cannot be any adjustment in respect of the AMP expenditure since no benefit arises to the AE on account of such expenditure. Accordingly, these grounds of the revenue are rejected and order of the Ld. CIT (A) is confirmed.”

¶66

In view of the aforesaid findings that the AMP expenditure was incurred in respect of India specific brands, we find no ground to interfere with the view as expressed by the ITAT.

¶67

This is a digitally signed order.

¶68

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/05/2024 at 12:12:08

¶69

Consequently, the appeals shall stand dismissed.

¶70

Since ITA 272/2018 stands disposed of by virtue of this order, we request learned counsel appearing for the respondent to place a common chart as well as the other compilations in any of the other surviving appeals.

¶71

ITA 872/2019 ITA 49/2020 ITA 50/2020 ITA 51/2020 ITA 54/2020 ITA 165/2021 ITA 166/2021 ITA 83/2022

¶72

On the request of learned counsel appearing for the appellants, let these appeals be called again on 29.08.2024.

¶73

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶74

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

¶75

MAY 20, 2024/p

¶76

This is a digitally signed order.

¶77

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/05/2024 at 12:12:08

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL)-3 v. Pernod Ricard India Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL)-3 v. Pernod Ricard India Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raash Mechanicals Private Limited Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-25 Delhi & Anr.

Bimal Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi & Anr.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-International Taxation -2 Vs Lummus Technology Heat Transfer Bv

New Delhi Television Limited Vs Dispute Resolution Panel 2 & Anr.

Powertech Electroinfra Private Limited Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-25 Delhi & Anr.

Amarjot Kaur Vs Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 35(5), Delhi & Ors.