{"id":62145,"date":"2026-07-18T15:23:04","date_gmt":"2026-07-18T09:53:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/mondelez-india-foods-p-ltd-formerly-known-as-cadbury-ltd-v-acit-2025-132-itr-83-mum-trib\/"},"modified":"2026-07-18T15:23:04","modified_gmt":"2026-07-18T09:53:04","slug":"mondelez-india-foods-p-ltd-formerly-known-as-cadbury-ltd-v-acit-2025-132-itr-83-mum-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/mondelez-india-foods-p-ltd-formerly-known-as-cadbury-ltd-v-acit-2025-132-itr-83-mum-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd. (formerly known as Cadbury Ltd.) v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 83 (Mum) (Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The assessee, a subsidiary of a UK company engaged in the food segment of the FMCG industry, faced transfer pricing adjustments and disallowances confirmed by the DRP on account of advertising, marketing and promotion expenses, royalty on technology, service charges paid to its associated enterprise, disallowance under section 14A, foreign exchange loss, deduction under section 80-IC, and addition based on annual information return mismatch. On appeal, the Tribunal, largely following its own decisions in the assessee\u2019s case for earlier years, held that in the absence of any agreement to share or reimburse advertising and marketing expenses, such expenditure was not an international transaction; that royalty paid for trademark and technology being under separate agreements could not be clubbed, and the technology royalty adjustment was to be deleted; that the arm’s length price could be determined only by one of the five methods prescribed under section 92C(1) and not by ad hoc estimation; that no disallowance under section 14A was warranted since the assessee had sufficient own funds, though the quantum was remitted for verification; that the foreign exchange loss on forward contracts terminated by the bank on maturity, not prematurely cancelled by the assessee, was allowable as business loss; that the assessee’s consistent method of allocating operating and establishment expenses for claiming deduction under section 80-IC was to be accepted; that no interest under section 234A was leviable as there was no delay in filing the return; and that the levy of interest under section 234C on assessed rather than returned income was remitted to the AO for re-computation.(AY. 2011-12, 2012-13) <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm\u2019s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Advertising, marketing and promotion expenses-No agreement with associated enterprise to share\/reimburse expenses-Not an international transaction-Addition not justified.-Royalty for trademark separate from royalty for technology-Cannot be clubbed-Adjustment on royalty for technology deleted-Arms length price-To be determined only by one of five prescribed methods-Ad hoc estimation of salary and man-hours not permissible-Adjustment deleted-Income-Disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income-Sufficient own funds available-No disallowance warranted-Direct\/indirect expenses remitted for verification-Business loss-Foreign exchange loss on forward contracts terminated by bank on\/after maturity, not prematurely cancelled by assessee-Integral to export of goods-Allowable as business loss-Special deduction-Allocation of operating and establishment expenses on ratio of unit’s revenue to total revenue-Method consistently accepted in earlier years-Deduction allowable-Interest-No delay in filing return-No interest under section 234A-Interest under section 234C levied on assessed income instead of returned income-Matter remitted for recomputation. [S. 14A, R. 8D, 28(i),80IC, 234A, 234C]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62145","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gal","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62145","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62145"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62145\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62146,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62145\/revisions\/62146"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}