9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1325 - HC - Income TaxTP Adjustment - AMP expenses - International transaction - whether the assessee, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of its AE is required to be compensated AMP expenses incurred by it on behalf of its AE? - Tribunal had concluded that the AMP expenses incurred by the respondent/assessee did not amount to an international transaction as relying on decision of this court passed in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2015 (12) TMI 634 - DELHI HIGH COURT - HELD THAT - Given the position and the fact that there has been no change in the circumstances concerning the respondent/assessee (something which has been noted by the Tribunal) according to us, in this matter, the principle of consistency would apply. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
Issues involved:
The issue involves the compensation for Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses incurred by a wholly owned subsidiary for its Associated Enterprise (AE) for Assessment Year 2010-11. Summary: Issue 1: Compensation for AMP Expenses: The appeal concerns the Assessment Year 2010-11 where the appellant/revenue seeks to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the compensation for AMP expenses incurred by the respondent/assessee for its AE. The Transfer Pricing Officer made an adjustment on the Arm's Length Price for what was considered an international transaction related to AMP expenditure. The Tribunal, based on previous decisions for AY 2007-08 to AY 2009-10, ruled in favor of the respondent/assessee, stating that the AMP expenses did not amount to an international transaction. The court also considered the decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v CIT (2016) 381 ITR 117. The appellant/revenue's Miscellaneous Applications filed with the Tribunal were dismissed, and as there has been no change in circumstances, the court applied the principle of consistency and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order. No substantial question of law was found to arise, and the appeal was closed accordingly.
|
