9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 1053 - AT - Income TaxTP adjustment on account of AMP expenses - expenditure incurred by the assessee for promoting brand and creating marketing intangible of Amadeus Global. - HELD THAT - We find that identical issue arose in assessee s own case in earlier years and while deciding the issue 2021 (5) TMI 536 - ITAT DELHI wherein direct the Assessing Officer /TPO to delete the additions made on account of AMP expenditure substantive and protective. Revenue could not point out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the case in the year under consideration and that of the earlier year. We therefore following the order of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee s own case for earlier years and for similar reasons direct the AO to delete the addition made on account of AMP expenditure on Substantive protective basis. Thus the ground of the assessee are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses. 2. Jurisdiction of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in proposing adjustments. 3. Application of Bright Line Test (BLT) and Cost Plus Method for benchmarking AMP expenditure. 4. Legal precedents and consistency in judicial decisions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Account of AMP Expenses: The primary issue in this case pertains to the transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenses. The assessee had incurred expenses on advertisement promotion, which the TPO considered as promoting the brand and creating marketing intangibles for the Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO proposed adjustments based on substantive and protective bases, which were upheld by the DRP. However, the assessee contested that these expenses were not an international transaction and should not be subject to transfer pricing adjustments. 2. Jurisdiction of the TPO in Proposing Adjustments: The assessee argued that the TPO lacked jurisdiction to propose adjustments on AMP expenses in the absence of a "transaction" as envisaged under section 92F of the Act between the appellant and its AE for brand promotion or establishing a marketing intangible. The Tribunal noted that identical issues in the assessee's own case for earlier years had been decided in favor of the assessee, where it was held that in the absence of an agreement or understanding for sharing AMP expenses, such expenses could not be termed as an international transaction. 3. Application of Bright Line Test (BLT) and Cost Plus Method: The TPO applied the Bright Line Test (BLT) for benchmarking AMP expenditure, which the assessee contested, citing the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's rejection of BLT in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal reiterated that the application of BLT for benchmarking AMP expenses is not permissible. Additionally, the TPO's use of the Cost Plus Method for substantive adjustments was also contested. The Tribunal followed the binding precedents which rejected the use of BLT and emphasized that AMP expenses should not be considered a separate international transaction unless there is an explicit agreement. 4. Legal Precedents and Consistency in Judicial Decisions: The Tribunal heavily relied on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other similar cases decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It was noted that the Hon'ble High Court had consistently held that in the absence of an agreement or understanding for incurring AMP expenses for the benefit of AE, such expenses could not be considered an international transaction. The Tribunal cited multiple cases, including Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., CIT vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd., and Bausch and Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd., to support its conclusion. The Tribunal concluded that the TPO had wrongly invoked the provisions of Chapter X of the Act for the AMP expenses and directed the AO to delete the additions made on account of AMP expenditure on both substantive and protective bases. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the transfer pricing adjustments made on account of AMP expenses, following the consistent judicial precedents that such expenses do not constitute an international transaction in the absence of an explicit agreement or understanding between the assessee and its AE.
|
