Coca-cola India Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. ACIT, Range-1, Pune

ITA 927/PUN/2011

AI Insights

The case involves a series of appeals by Coca Cola India Private Limited against various orders of the Income Tax Department concerning disallowances and adjustments made in the company's tax assessments for the years 2005-06 to 2016-17. The primary issues revolved around the disallowance of service charges and reimbursements, depreciation on coolers, and transfer pricing adjustments related to advertising, marketing, and promotion expenses. The Tribunal examined each issue in the context of the applicable laws and previous rulings, leading to a mix of upheld, reversed, and remanded decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137956 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowedPartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2011
• Other Referred Cases: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2016] 381 ITR 117 (Delhi)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 143(3); 92B; 144C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “C” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMASHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.927/PUN./2011 Assessment Year 2005-2006 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-10, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Pune. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.940/PUN./2011 Assessment Year 2005-2006 The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Pune. vs. Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-10, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1377/PUN./2010 Assessment Year 2006-2007 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-10, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1578/PUN./2011 Assessment Year 2007-2008 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Pune. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2596/PUN./2012 2 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. Assessment Year 2008-2009 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Pune. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.860/PUN./2014 Assessment Year 2009-2010 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. vs. Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109- 1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.516/PUN./2015 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.539/PUN./2015 3 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. Assessment Year 2010-2011 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. vs. Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109- 1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.830/PUN./2016 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.822/PUN./2016 Assessment Year 2011-2012 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. vs. Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109- 1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.988/PUN./2017 4 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. Assessment Year 2012-2013 ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018 Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Income Tax Office, PMT Building, Shankar Seth Road, Pune – 411 037. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Plot No.1109-1110, Village-Pirangut, Tal Munshi, Pune – 412 108 PAN AAACB8573G vs. The ACIT, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R. Muralidhar, Shri Nikhil Garg, And Shri Anindya Sorcar For Revenue : Shri Shishir Shrivastava Date of Hearing : 03.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2023 ORDER 5 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. The instant batch of 16 cases pertains to a single assessee herein M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd., The first and foremost assessment year 2005-06 contains assessee’s and Revenue’s cross-appeals.Nos.927 & 940/PUN./2011 arising against the CIT(A)-1, Pune’s order dated 29.11.2010 passed in Case No.PN/CIT(A)-1/Addl.CIT, R-1,Pn/217/08-09, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 1.1. Second assessment year 2006-07 involves the assessee’s appeal ITA.No.1377/PUN./2010 directed against DCIT, Circle-1(1)’s assessment dated 19.10.2010 framed in consequence to the “DRP” Pune’s directions dated 13.09.2010 in proceedings u/s.144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 1.2. Third assessment year 2007-08 contains the assessee’s appeal ITA.No.1578/PUN./2011 directed against the Addl. CIT, Range-1, Pune’s assessment dated 13.10.2011 framed as per the DRP Pune’s directions dated 26.09.2011, in 6 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 1.3. Fourth assessment year 2008-09 involves assessee’s appeal ITA.No.2596/PUN./2012 directed against the DCIT, Circle-1(1)’s assessment dated 25.10.2012 framed as per the DRP Pune’s directions dated 05.09.2012, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 1.4. Fifth assessment year 2008-09 herein comprises of assessee’s and Revenue’s cross-appeals ITA.Nos.815 and 860/PUN./2014 arising against DCIT, Circle-1(1) Pune’s assessment dated 27.02.2014 finalised as per the DRP Pune’s directions dated 31.12.2013, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 1.5. Sixth assessment year 2010-11 herein comprises of assessee’s and Revenue’s cross-appeals ITA.Nos.516 & 539/ PUN./2015 preferred against DCIT, Circle-1(1) Pune’s assessment dated 25.02.2015 finalised as per the DRP Pune’s directions dated 26.12.2014, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 7 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 1.6. Next assessment year 2011-12 herein involves Revenue’s and assessee’s cross-appeals ITA.Nos.822 and 830/ PUN./2016 filed against DCIT, Circle-1(1) Pune’s assessment dated 25.02.2016 finalised as per the Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai’s directions dated 30.12.2015, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 1.7. The assessee’s next five appeals ITA.No.988/PUN./ 2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 196/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./ 2019 and ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 are directed against DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune’s separate assessments dated 14.02.2017, 27.11.2017, 22.10.2018 [for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15], ACIT, Circle-1(1)’s assessments dated 18.10.2019 [for assessment year 2015-16] and the National e-Assessment Centre’s assessment dated 04.05.2021 for last assessment year 2016-17 respectively, framed as per the corresponding DRP’s directions in its objection petitions, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 8 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 2. Both the learned representatives are ad idem during the course of hearing that the instant batch of sixteen cross- appeals indeed raise identical/inter-connected issues of corporate taxation as well as transfer pricing, as the case may be. We thus deem it appropriate to proceed assessment year- wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The first and foremost assessment year before us is assessment year 2005-06 wherein both the assessee and the Revenue have preferred their cross-appeals ITA.Nos.927 & 940/PUN./2011. These twin appeals are, therefore, treated as the “lead” cases. We proceed to adjudicate these twin cross- appeals in the succeeding paragraphs. 4. The assessee’s appeal ITA.No.927/PUN./2011 raises the following 18 substantive grounds : 1. “The impugned order of the CIT(A) is bad in law, illegal, untenable and contrary to facts and law as enunciated by the Hon. Courts, as the same is based on presumptions and without appreciation of basic facts , it is therefore 9 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. prayed that the same deserves to be set aside and the valid claims of the appellants allowed in toto. 2. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is untenable as it proceeds to make adhoc disallowance of expenditure purely based on presumptions without citing any specific reasons as to how the expenditure under different heads is not for the business of appellants, and completely ignores to consider the detailed factual explanations offered at the time of assessment and the appellate proceedings. Re: Disallowance of service charges including reimbursements 3. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the appellant's business expenditure representing service charges including reimbursements and restricting the same to the 30% of the claim. 4. CIT(A) erred in disallowing 30% of the Service charges including reimbursements without giving any reasonable basis and proceeded merely on ground that these had been disallowed by his predecessor. 10 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 5. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining disallowance of an amount of 30% of service charges including reimbursements on ad-hoc basis without citing any reasons for such a conclusion. 6. CIT(A) has grossly erred in disallowing the 30% of service charges including reimbursements paid to the service providing company mechanically by following the decision of his predecessors in earlier years without appreciating that this expenditure is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of rendering services to the appellants business. 7. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the following: (a) The evidence on record clearly showed that in accordance with the approvals of the Reserve Bank of India, CCI Inc handled all business activities of the Appellant, other than manufacturing. (b) The services rendered by CCI Inc was directly rendered for the benefit of the appellant; (c) The services rendered to the bottlers were in the nature of quality control and designed to assist the Appellant's business; 11 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. (d) That the economic cost of such services to the bottlers was recovered by the Appellant from the bottlers in the price of the concentrate although this fact is not disputed in the impugned order. Re: Disallowance of reimbursement of traveling expenses 8. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the entire expenditure on account of reimbursement of traveling expenses to service providers without citing any reasons for such a view and proceeded to disallow the same merely on ground that these had been disallowed by his predecessor . 9. CIT(A) totally erred in relying on factually incorrect presumption of his predecessor that there was no contractual obligation on record which would justify the reimbursement of traveling expenses of the employees of CCI Inc. 10. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the following : 1. The traveling expenses were incurred by CCII in terms of the service agreement entered into by the appellant and CCII. 12 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 2. The evidence on record clearly shows that in accordance with the approvals of the Reserve Bank of India, CCI Inc handled all business activities of the Appellant, other than manufacturing. 11. Without prejudice to the contention that traveling expenses were incurred wholly for the purpose of business of the Appellants and deserve to be allowed in toto, the CIT(A) erred in not allowing even 70% of such expenses as it is allowed in the case of service charges paid by the Appellants to CCI Inc. Re: Disallowance of depreciation on coolers: 12. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the depreciation amounting to Rs. 9,68, 12,420/- on coolers merely on the basis that they were disallowed by the predecessor in the earlier years. 13. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the activity of placing coolers directly results in increased sales of appellants products and has a immediate nexus with the business. Further the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the coolers 13 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. were placed as part of the joint promotion activity undertaken for appellants business. 14. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that : (a) The Appellant's sales are directly linked to the sale of the final beverages as the product of the appellant has no other commercial use except as ingredient in the manufacture of beverages. (b) The coolers were an important marketing tool used by the appellants to advertise and create awareness and demand for the products, and that the cost for all the marketing efforts was recovered in the price of concentrate sold to the bottlers. (c) That such expenditure was part of the joint marketing efforts undertaken by your appellant for furthering its business interests. 15. The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the nature of the industry in which the Appellant operates and the obligation cast on the Appellant by business customs and trade practices. 14 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 16. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the ownership of the coolers vested at all times with the Appellant and the Appellant had free access to the coolers and could move the same to a different outlet depending on its business needs. The CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that the retailer could use the cooler only for the purpose and in the manner specified by the Appellant. 17. The CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicated the grounds relating to the transfer pricing, if adjustment of Rs.3,32,28,390 by considering them as academic. 18. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. Further, the Appellant craves leave to add, or alter by deletion, substitution or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or during the hearing of the Appeal.” 5. The Revenue’s cross-appeal ITA.No.940/PUN./2011 on the other hand raises the following pleadings : 15 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.62,58,70,252/- made on account of advertisement and sales promotion and claimed allowable u/s 37 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus of proving that such expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in relying order of the ITAT in assessee case for the A.Y. 1997-98 & 1998-99 against which an appeal to the jurisdictional High court filed by the department is still pending. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in restricting the disallowance made by the A.O. in respect of service charges to 30% of the total disallowance made by the A.O. without assigning any reason and without appreciating the fact that the addition was made on account of failure on the part of the assessee to prove that 16 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. such expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in allowing the assessee, the expense borne by the assessee relating to other business concern, which has resulted in excess debiting of expenses thereby leading to artificially lowering of profits thus causing huge loss to the revenue. 5. For these and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) may be vacated and that of the Assessing officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 6. Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee’s 1 st , 2 nd and 18 th substantive grounds are general in nature. Rejected accordingly. 7. Next comes the common issue between the parties regarding disallowance of service charges and other reimbursement(s) made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of 17 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. Rs.62,58,70,252/- in his assessment order dated 30.12.2008, as restricted to that @ 30% only in the CIT(A)'s order which leaves both the parties aggrieved. 8. The assessee’s next twin substantive grievances are regarding disallowance of reimbursement of travelling expenses and depreciation on coolers involving varying sums. We find in this factual backdrop that all these issues are no more res integra as the tribunal’s coordinate bench’s common order in assessment years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 involving assessee’s and Revenue’s cross-appeals decided on 29.04.2022, inter alia, has accepted the former’s claim of various expenses restricted to 30% in entirety by following its earlier orders, partly uphold the learned lower authorities action disallowing travelling expenses @ 10% only on estimation basis and rejected the department’s stand on depreciation on coolers provided to bottlers/vendors vis-à-vis their WDV in full, respectively. 9. Both the parties are fair enough in not pinpointing any distinction on facts or law in the impugned assessment year as well so far as these three issues are concerned. We 18 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. thus adopt judicial consistency to decide the first and foremost issue of reimbursement [restricted to 30% in the CIT(A)'s order] to full extent assessee’s favour, uphold only 10% of travelling expenses and accept it’s stand relating to depreciation on coolers in very terms. The assessee’s 3 rd to 7 th substantive grounds succeed, 8 to 11 substantive grounds are partly accepted and 12 to 16 substantive grounds pertaining to depreciation on coolers are allowed, respectively. The Revenue’s corresponding substantive ground nos.1 to 6 fail as well as it’s cross-appeal ITA.No.940/PUN./2011 fail as the necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly. 10. This leaves us with the assessee’s 17 th substantive ground regarding transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3,32,28,390/- alleged to have been treated as a mere academic issue at page-68 in para-6.4 of the CIT(A)'s order. Learned counsel could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer had nowhere made any such adjustment in his final assessment dated 30.12.2008. We thus reject this 17 th substantive grounds in very terms. 19 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 11. This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.927/PUN./2011 is partly accepted in above terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. ITA.No.1377/PUN./2011 – A.Y. 2006-07 [Assessee’s Appeal] : 12. Learned DR at the outset filed his petition dated 03.01.2003 that the department had appointed its Special Counsel vide letter dated 01.12.2013 who is not present today. We find no reason to adjourn the assessee’s instant appeal once it is noticed that all the issues raised herein are covered ones only. We thus reject the Revenue’s instant adjournment petition. 13. The assessee appears to have raised its substantive ground nos.1 to 2.1.0 on both corporate as well as transfer pricing issues. It’s former substantive ground-1 involving [sub- grounds 1.1 to 1.9] pleads twin grievances of disallowance of advertisement, sales and marketing expenditure as well as depreciation on coolers, involving varying sums. Needless to say, the assessee has already succeeded on both these issues in the first and foremost assessment year 2005-06 in 20 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. preceding paragraph. The Revenue could hardly pinpoint any distinction on the assessee’s arrangement of having incurred advertising and sales promotion expenses followed by its depreciation claim on coolers. We thus see no reason to adopt a different approach in this second assessment year 2006-07. These twin disallowances accordingly stand reversed therefore. 14. Mr. Muralidharan at this stage invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion regarding the assessee’s substantive ground nos.2 to 2.10 raising the transfer pricing adjustments issue. We note that the DRP’s detailed discussion in para-8 onwards on this issue reads as follows : 21 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 22 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 23 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 24 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 25 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 26 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 27 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 28 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 15. Learned counsel is fair enough in not pressing for the assessee’s corresponding pleadings in above extracted ground nos.7 and 14 at this stage and ground nos.15 and 16 as mere consequential in nature, respectively as per the pleadings before the DRP. Rejected accordingly. 16. We now advert to assessee’s pleadings raised during the course of hearing that the department, and more particularly, the TPO took a diametrically opposite view in case of the assessee and its AE regarding the very issue. Faced with the situation and more particularly in light of the fact that the learned “Panel” has not discussed even the most appropriate method [in short “MAM”] before rejecting the assessee’s contentions, we deem it appropriate to restore these remaining grounds back to the learned “DRP” for its fresh adjudication on merits, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing as much water has flown down the stream since the 29 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. impugned assessment year 2006-07. Ordered accordingly. The assessee’s 2 nd substantive ground herein is accepted for statistical purposes to the above extent. 17. This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.1377/PUN./2011 partly succeeds in the above terms. ITA.No.1578/PUN./2011 – A.Y. 2007-08 [Assessee’s Appeal] : 18. The assessee appears to have raised its first and foremost substantive grievance involving corporate tax issue regarding disallowance of marketing support expenses of Rs.94,20,48,306/- followed by the latter grievance relating to depreciation on coolers involving Rs.5,68,46,277/-, respectively. This latter issue of depreciation is already covered against the department as per our detailed discussion in preceding paragraph. Ordered accordingly. 18.1. Coming to disallowance of marketing support services, we note that the Assessing Officer has refused to follow the “DRP’s” directions regarding the matter in light of sec.144C(13) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act. He has not carried-out any verification as per his detailed discussion in page-5 para-2 30 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. of the assessment order. Faced with this peculiar situation and in view of the clinching fact that the assessee may not be able to completely verify its detailed evidence of assessment year 2007-08 in the year 2023, we deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned disallowance of Rs.94,20,48,306/- to that @ 5% only. Ordered accordingly. 19. It next transpires that the assessee’s 2 nd substantive grievance of transfer pricing adjustment [sub-grounds 2.1 to 2.18] deserves to be restored back to the learned DRP as we have done in assessment year 2006-07 deduction in preceding paragraph. Both the learned representatives are ad idem during the course of hearing that there is no distinction involved in the impugned assessment year 2007-08 qua the same. We thus adopt judicial consistency to adopt the very course of action herein as well in the same terms. These assessee’s 2 nd substantive ground stand set aside to the learned DRP for its afresh adjudication as per law. 20. Further there arises purely a legal question in the impugned assessment year regarding the assessee’s payments involving advertisement, marketing promotion and marketing 31 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. support segment [in short “AMP”] expenses. Learned CIT-DR could hardly dispute that case law Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2016] 381 ITR 117 (Delhi) has already held that such “AMP” transactions do not amount to an international transaction u/s.92B of the Act. Faced with the situation, we reverse learned lower authorities action to this limited extent. Ordered accordingly. 21. This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.1571/PUN./2011 is partly accepted in above terms. ITA.No.2596/PUN./2012 – A.Y. 2008-09 [Assessee’s Appeal] : 22. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s twin substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal involving corporate tax and transfer pricing issues involving varying sums, as the case may be, which are squarely covered as per our deduction in the immediately preceding assessment year 2007-08. Faced with the situation, we reverse the learned lower authorities action inter alia, disallowing advertisement and sales promotion reimbursements, depreciation on coolers and the transfer pricing adjustments pertaining to it’s “AMP” segment, 32 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. respectively. It’s remaining arm’s length price adjustment grounds relating to support services are restored back to the learned DRP in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 23. This appeal ITA.No.2596/PUN./2012 is partly allowed. ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 – A.Y. 2009-10 [Assessee’s Appeal] : ITA.No.860/PUN./2014 – A.Y. 2009-10 [Revenue’s Appeal] : 24. It transpires during the course of hearing that assessee has raised its twin substantive grounds wherein the former grievance seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action inter alia, disallowing marketing support charges reimbursements, which also forms Revenue’s sole substantive grievance in cross-appeal ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, followed by the depreciation disallowance on coolers, involving varying sums. Suffice to say, we have already decided the same in assessee’s favour and against the department in the “lead” assessment year 2005-06 in preceding paragraph. We adopt judicial consistency herein as well on account of no distinction on facts or law pinpointed by either of these parties. The assessee succeeds in it’s first and foremost substantive 33 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. grounds whereas the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance to this effect is rejected. So is the out come of the latter cross- appeal ITA.No.860/PUN./2014. 25. Coming to the assessee’s latter substantive grounds involving the transfer pricing adjustment issues, we note with the able assistance coming from both the sides that it’s former limb involving ALP of service charges and other reimbursements deserves to be set aside to learned DRP whereas the latter aspect of “AMP” expenses has to be decided against the department as per our detailed discussion in preceding paragraph. We order accordingly. 26. This appeal ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 is partly accepted in above terms. ITA.No.516/PUN./2015 – A.Y. 2010-11 [ Assessee’s appeal] : 27. Sixth assessment year 2010-11 involves assessee’s and Revenue’s cross-appeals ITA.No.516 & 539/PUN./2015. 28. We note at the outset that both these parties raise their first and foremost identical substantive ground qua issue of expenditure of reimbursements which we have already 34 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. decided in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue. We thus reject the Revenue’s instant cross-appeal ITA.No.539/PUN./ 2015 for this precide reason alone by adopting judicial consistency. 29. The assessee’s remaining twin substantive grounds of depreciation on coolers and under corporate tax and ALP adjustment on advertising and marketing promotion “AMP” are accepted as per our detailed discussion on the very issues in the preceding paragraph. The assessee’s instant appeal ITA.No.516/PUN./2015 succeeds therefore. ITA.No.822/PUN./2016 – A.Y. 2011-12 [Revenue’s appeal] ITA.No.830/PUN./2016 – A.Y. 2011-12 [Assessee’s appeal] 30. Seventh assessment year 2011-12 contains Revenue’s and assessee’s cross-appeals ITA.No.822/Pun./ 2016 and ITA.No.830/PUN./2016, respectively. A perusal of the corresponding rival pleadings reveals that former’s sole substantive grounds and the latter’s first grievance raise identical issue of expenditure reimbursements which we have already decided in the taxpayer’s favour in preceding paragraph. We thus see no reason to deviate from our 35 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. preceding reasoning in absence of any distinction on facts or law pinpointed at the Revenue’s behest. The Revenue’s appeal ITA.No.822/PUN./2016 is rejected and assessee’s corresponding grounds are accepted. 31. The very outcome shall follow in assessee’s appeal ITA.No.830/PUN./2016 wherein it challenges disallowance of depreciation on coolers and “AMP” expenses treated as an international transaction u/s. 92B of the Act, which we have already adjudicated in its favour in preceding detailed discussion. Ordered accordingly. 32. This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.830/PUN./2016 succeeds therefore. 33. Lastly come with the assessee’s remaining five appeals i.e. ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 and ITA.No.271/ PUN./2021 for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively, wherein it’s identical three substantive grounds raised as many issues of disallowance of expenditure reimbursements, depreciation on coolers and advertising, marketing and promotion [“AMP”] 36 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. expenses treated as an international transaction u/s.92B of the Act which we have already decided against the department in preceding paragraphs. We thus accept the assessee’s all the instant corresponding substantive grounds, involving varying sums, by adopting judicial consistency. Ordered accordingly. 34. These assessee’s five appeals ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 and ITA.No.271/ PUN./2021 succeed in very terms. 35. We make it clear before parting that we have reversed the learned lower authorities action inter alia, disallowing reimbursements of marketing support services expenses in entirety [except in assessment year 2007-08], restricted travelling expenditure disallowance to 10%, restored the taxpayer’s transfer pricing grounds involving service charges [including reimbursements paid to branch office] back to DRP and deleted the ALP adjustments relating to advertisement and marketing promotion “AMP” expenses, respectively. Ordered accordingly. 37 ITA.Nos.927, 940, 1377, 1578/PUN./2011 ITA.Nos.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815/PUN./2014 ITA.No.860/PUN./2014, ITA.Nos.516 & 539/PUN./2015 ITA.Nos.830 & 822/PUN./2014, ITA.No.988/PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.271/PUN./2021 Coca Cola India Private Limited, Pune. 36. To sum-up, the assessee’s appeals ITA.Nos.927/PUN/2011, 1377/PUN./2010, 1578/PUN./2011, ITA.No.2596/PUN./2012, ITA.No.815 /PUN./2014 are partly allowed, ITA.No.516/PUN./2015, ITA.No.830/PUN./2016, ITA.No.988/ PUN./2017, ITA.Nos.176 & 1960/PUN./2018, ITA.No.1691/ PUN./2019 and ITA.No.271 /PUN./2021 are allowed in above terms. These Revenue’s appeal ITA.No.940/PUN./ 2011, ITA.No.539/PUN./2015, ITA.No.860/PUN./2014 and ITA.No.822/Pun./2016 are dismissed in the above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12 th January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (GD PADMASHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 12 th January, 2023 VBP/- Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. Ld. CIT(A) concerned 4. Ld. CIT concerned 5. DR ITAT Pune-C Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //BY Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.