| COURT: | ITAT Bangalore |
| CORAM: | Inturi Rama Rao (AM), Vijay Pal Rao (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 92C |
| GENRE: | Transfer Pricing |
| CATCH WORDS: | ALP, AMP Expenditure, Transfer Pricing |
| COUNSEL: | S. Ramasubramanyam |
| DATE: | February 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | March 3, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2009-10, 2010-11 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| Transfer Pricing: The existence of an "international transaction" w.r.t. AMP Expenditure cannot be assumed. The onus is on the TPO to prove such transaction. There is no machinery provision to ascertain the price to promote the AE's brand values. The AMP Expenditure should be treated as operating cost to apply TNMM and determine ALP of transactions with AE | |
(i) No TP adjustment can be made by deducing from the difference between AMP expenditure incurred by assessee-company and AMP expenditure of comparable entity, if there is no explicit arrangement between the assessee-company and its foreign AE for incurring such expenditure. The fact that the benefit of such AMP expenditure would also enure to its foreign AE is not sufficient to infer existence of international transaction. The onus lies on the revenue to prove the existence of international transaction involving AMP expenditure between the assessee company and its foreign AE.
(ii) In the absence of machinery provisions to ascertain the price incurred by the assessee-company to promote the brand values of the products of the foreign entity, no TP adjustment can be made by invoking the provisions of Chapter X of the Act.
(iii) On facts, it is not a case of revenue that there existed an arrangement and agreement between the assessee-company and its foreign AE to incur AMP expenditure to promote brand value of its products on behalf of the foreign AE, merely because the assessee-company incurred more expenditure on AMP compared to the expenditure incurred by comparable companies, it cannot be inferred that there existed international transaction between assessee-company and its foreign AE. Therefore, the question of determination of ALP on such transaction does not arise.
(iv) However, the transaction of expenditure on AMP should be treated as a part of aggregate of bundle of transactions on which TNMM should be applied in order to determine the ALP of its transactions with its AE. In other words, the transaction of expenditure on AMP cannot be treated as a separate transaction.
(v) In the present case, we find from the TP study that the operating profit cost to the total operating cost was adopted as Profit Level Indicator which means that the AMP expenditure was not considered as a part of the operating cost. This goes to show that the AMP expenditure was not subsumed in the operating profitability of the assessee-company. Therefore, in order to determine the ALP of international transaction with its AE, it is sine qua non that the AMP expenditure should be considered as a part of the operating cost. Therefore, we restore the issue of determination of ALP, on the above lines, to the file of the AO/TPO.
(i) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., 140 ITD 41)(Del)(SB), (ii) Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (374 ITR 118)(Del)
(iii) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. CIT (282 CTR 1),
(iv) CIT vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd. (129 DTR (169),
(v) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (129 DTR 201)
(vi) Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No.349/2015 dated 13/01/2016)
(vii) Honda Seil Products
Recent Comments