COURT: | ITAT Chennai |
CORAM: | G. Pavan Kumar (JM), Pramod Kumar (AM) |
SECTION(S): | 92C |
GENRE: | Transfer Pricing |
CATCH WORDS: | AMP Expenditure, Transfer Pricing |
COUNSEL: | K. R. Sekar, R. Vijayaraghavan |
DATE: | April 27, 2017 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | May 9, 2017 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 2009-10 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
Transfer Pricing AMP Adjustment: Entire law on whether the advertisement expenditure incurred by the Indian AE towards brand of a foreign company can be treated as an “international transaction” and whether a notional adjustment can be made in the hands of the Indian AE towards compensation receivable from the foreign AE for “deemed brand development” explained |
A service has to be conscious activity and it cannot be a subliminal exercise- as is the impact on brand value in this case. A service, by definition, is an act of helping, or doing something on behalf of, someone. A passive exercise cannot be defined as a service. Every benefit accruing to an AE, as a result of dealing with another AE, is not on account of service by the other AE. What I benchmarked is not the accrual of ‘benefit’ but rendition of ‘service’. All benefits are not accounts or services by someone, just as all services do not result in benefits to the parties. The expressions ‘benefit’ and ‘service’ have different connotations, and what is truly relevant, for the purpose of definition of ‘international transaction’ in Indian context, is ‘service’- not the benefit. There is no rendition of service in the present context
Recent Comments