AO made addition in respect of arm’s length price adjustment for advertising promotion and marketing (AMP) expenses by applying bright line test (BLT). Tribunal held that there was no dispute that application of bright line test, for making ALP adjustments in respect of AMP expenses, was held to be unsustainable in law by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, and TPO himself stated so in so many words. It was also elementary that it could not be open to disregard binding judicial precedents and uphold application of bright line test, for determining the ALP adjustment in respect of AMP expenses, merely because a binding judicial precedent from jurisdictional High Court had been challenged by revenue authorities before Supreme Court. Binding nature of a judicial precedent, as long as it hold field i.e. was not overturned, remained unaffected. Addition is deleted. Very concept of protective addition was relevant only when an income was to be added in hands of more than one taxpayer, in situation in which there was element of ambiguity as to in whose hands said income could be rightly brought to tax and that’s not case here. Concept of ‘protective assessment’, as known to income tax law, had no application to assessee’s case. (AY.2013-14)