| COURT: | ITAT Delhi |
| CORAM: | Pramod Kumar (AM), Sudhanshu Srivastava (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 92B |
| GENRE: | Transfer Pricing |
| CATCH WORDS: | AMP Expenditure, Transfer Pricing |
| COUNSEL: | Rashmi Gupta, Sumit Mangal |
| DATE: | August 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | August 30, 2018 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2009-10 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 92B Transfer Pricing of AMP Expenditure: In the absence of material to suggest that there was an "arrangement, understanding or action in concert" with respect of the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee, the TPO is not justified in coming to the conclusion that there was an international transaction u/s 92B and that the assessee should have recovered an amount from its AE. The request of the Dept for a remand to the TPO is not acceptable. A remand to the assessment stage cannot be a matter of routine; it has to be so done only when there is anything in the facts and circumstances to so warrant or justify | |
On a careful consideration of all these factors, including the inconsistency in the approach of the AO/TPO with respect to the AMP expenditure being in the nature of an international transaction as expenditure incurred on behalf of the assessee, including the quantum and nature of expenditure and including lack of any material to suggest that there was “an arrangement, understanding or action in concert” with respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee and including the fact that, in our considered view, the expenditure incurred by the assessee was in nature of bonafide business expenditure in furtherance of its legitimate business interests, we are of the considered view that there is no legally sustainable basis for the TPO coming to the conclusion that there was an international transaction, under section 92B, on the facts of this case
Recent Comments