Held that the Tribunal in the earlier years had held that the onus of proof lay on the Department to prove that there was an international transaction in existence and that the transaction in question was not an international transaction as per the provisions of the law. As there was been no change in the factual matrix of this case, taking a consistent view on this issue, the transfer pricing adjustment was not sustainable.(AY. 2018-19)
L’oreal India P. Ltd. v.ACIT (2023)104 ITR 23 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)
S. 92B : Transfer pricing-International transaction-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-Advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses-Burden is on revenue. [S.92CA(3)]