9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t an international transaction in the first place, was on account of the fact that the Revenue had failed to point out the existence of any arrangement or agreement between the assessee and its associated enterprise reflecting the entrustment of the liability/responsibility to carry out brand promotion expenses on behalf of the parent AE by the assessee. The clauses now referred to by the Revenue in support of its contention that they reflect the entrustment of the responsibility of carrying out brand promotion to the assessee by AE, we find are of no relevance. Clause No.21 of the JV referred to by the Revenue only states that the assessee company would market the licensed products which are manufactured in India. This is just a normal sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in favour of the assessee, was not squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and hence a mistake had occurred in the order while applying the said decision to the facts of the present case. 3. Brief background of the case is that the assessee is a joint venture between Widex A/S Denmark and Mr. T.S. Anand of India and deals in hearing aids, selling products largely to the end users after customization of the products and through a network of dealers. In the impugned assessment year the Assessing Officer held that the Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses incurred by the assessee were for the purpose of promoting the brand/development of marketing intangible for Widex products in India and, therefore, was an inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o promote the brand of the other , and that merely because the expenses resulted in service or benefit to the other party would not by itself constitute the transaction as an international transaction. The I.T.A.T. found that in the present case, there was no finding of any clause in the agreement entered into between the two parties, requiring the assessee to undertake brand promotion expenses on behalf of the assessee and it was also found that AMP spend had been treated as international transaction since it was found to benefit the AE only as the brand was owned by the AE. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bausch & Laumb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the addition made on account of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t; . there has to be a separate agreement dealing with trademark etc. Ld.DR contended that this agreement was not produced before the TPO during the transfer pricing proceedings which fact has been mentioned in Para 7.1 of the TPO order passed u/s 92CA of the l.T. Act. 1961 dated 29.01.2015. Ld.DR contended that this agreement was important in the case as addition in this case had been done on the basis of AMP expenditure. 10. The Ld. counsel for assessee, on the other hand, contended that the above two clauses in the joint venture agreement nowhere demonstrate that the assessee was entrusted with the responsibility of incurring brand promotion expenses and, therefore, there is no merit in the present Miscellaneous Application filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
