Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that ,in the present case, no new facts have emerged and all the facts brought to record, during the course of the assessment proceedings, do not indicate legally sustainable basis for coming to the conclusion that there was an internal transaction in respect of AMP expenses incurred by the assessee. Therefore, the plea of the assessee, on the peculiar facts of this case, does indeed deserve to be upheld that there is no material on record to hold that there was an international transactions, in terms of the provisions of section 92B, nor any material has been brought on record to even remotely suggest so and, therefore, that there is no good reason to remit the matter to the assessment stage for building a case afresh. The impugned ALP adjustment which was made solely on the basis of bright line test is to be deleted. (AY. 2009-10)
Moet Hennessy India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 173 ITD 55/169 DTR 241 / 195 TTJ 377/ 358(Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 92B : Transfer pricing-International transaction-Bright line test -AMP expenses- A higher AMP expenses per se cannot be reason enough to infer that there is an international transaction; there has to be something more than mere quantum of expenditure to indicate, even if not established, that said expenditure is incurred on behalf of AE. [S. 92C]