COURT: | Delhi High Court |
CORAM: | S. Muralidhar J, Vibhu Bakhru J |
SECTION(S): | 92, 92F |
GENRE: | Transfer Pricing |
CATCH WORDS: | AMP Expenditure, Transfer Pricing |
COUNSEL: | Ajay Vohra, S. Ganesh |
DATE: | December 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | December 11, 2015 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 2006-07 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
Transfer Pricing: Important legal principles on whether an adjustment for Advertisement & Market Promotion (AMP) expenses can be made on the basis that there is an assumed “international transaction” with the AE because the advertisement expenditure of the Indian company is “excessive” explained |
The transfer pricing adjustment is not expected to be made by deducing from the difference between the ‘excessive’ AMP expenditure incurred by the Assessee and the AMP expenditure of a comparable entity that an international transaction exists and then proceed to make the adjustment of the difference in order to determine the value of such AMP expenditure incurred for the AE. And, yet, that is what appears to have been done by the Revenue in the present case. It first arrived at the ‘bright line’ by comparing the AMP expenses incurred by MSIL with the average percentage of the AMP expenses incurred by the comparable entities. Since on applying the BLT, the AMP spend of MSIL was found ‘excessive’ the Revenue deduced the existence of an international transaction. It then added back the excess expenditure as the transfer pricing ‘adjustment’. This runs counter to legal position explained in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del), which required a TPO “to examine the ‘international transaction’ as he actually finds the same.” In other words the very existence of an international transaction cannot be a matter for inference or surmise
Recent Comments