IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 9727/DEL/2019 A. Yr: 2015-16 ITA No. 670/DEL/2021 A. Yr: 2016-17 Tupperware India Private Limited, Vs ACIT, Circle 25(2), 204-206, Tolstoy House, New Delhi.

15 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

PAN: AAACT 3770 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv.;

Ms. Tanya, Adv.; &

Ms. Shivani, Adv.

Department represented by Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT( DR)

Date of hearing 19.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 12.03.2025

O R D E R

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

The assessee has come in appeal against the assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(2), Delhi, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). All the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.

2. Heard and perused the record. Ld. Representatives have referred to the facts, evidences and impugned decisions of AY 2015-16 (Appeal No. ITA 9727/DEL/2019), thus same is being taken as the lead case. The basic facts are that the Appellant is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of moulded plastic kitchenware products, carrying out manufacturing activities from its plant located at Dehradun. The Appellant filed its return of income on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of INR 97,70,39,530. Since the Appellant company, during the impugned financial year, had entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (“AEs”), covered under section 92CA of the Act, AO referred the matter to the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) for determination of the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) of the international transactions. As per the Transfer Pricing documentation, the Appellant has earned an operating margin of 21.94%. On the other hand, the comparables have earned a working capital adjusted margin of 3.77% (35^th Percentile) to 7.82% (65^th Percentile) with a median of 5.90%. Hence, the transactions of Tupperware India have been claimed to be at arm’s length.

3. During the course of the TP assessment proceedings, the TPO requested for various information/ documents which were filed time to time. Subsequently, the TPO issued show cause notice dated October 03, 2018 (F. No. DCIT/TPO- 3(2)(1)/SCN/2018-19/264) (available at pages 991 to 1001 of PB), wherein the Appellant was asked to show cause as to why certain adjustments should not be undertaken by the Ld. TPO. Subsequently, the Ld. TPO issued another show cause notice dated October 08, 2018 (F. No.: DCIT/TPO-3(2)(1)/SCN/2018-19/275) (available at pages 982 to 990 of PB) wherein adjustments only on account of alleged Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (“AMP”) expenses and payment of royalty, were proposed by the Ld. TPO. Then based on a clarification sought from the office of the TPO, it was made clear to the Appellant that a reply was required to be furnished in respect of the latter show cause notice i.e. dated October 08, 2018. So, vide reply dated October 16, 2018, Tupperware India mentioned this fact in the submission for a confirmation with respect to the same. The said submission was duly accepted and acknowledged by the office of the Ld. TPO. Then Ld. TPO proceeded to undertake transfer pricing adjustments vide TP order dated October 30, 2018 and the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order dated December 19, 2018 incorporating the adjustments undertaken by the Ld. TPO. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (

“DRP”) and DRP upheld the findings of the Ld. TPO.

4. Ld. AR has provided a summary of TP adjustments, post DRP directions as follows:

5. Aggrieved by the observations of Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and Ld. DRP,