On the issue whether the Tribunal was justified in (i) deleting addition made on account of advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses (AMP) incurred by the assessee for brand-building of its associated enterprise, and (ii) holding that the Department must establish on the basis of tangible material that there existed an international transaction regarding AMP expenses: Held, dismissing the appeal, that an international transaction requires a discernible arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for allocation or apportionment of expenses. Section 92F defines a transaction to include an arrangement or action in concert, but its existence must be first established. The Explanation to section 92B only clarified the scope of intangible property but did not relieve the Revenue from proving the existence of a transaction. Since the Revenue failed to establish such a transaction and merely invoked the bright line test on excessive AMP expenditure, the Tribunal rightly set aside the assessments. The deeming fiction in section 92B(2) applied prospectively from 1-4-2015 and did not cover AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13. (AY. 2009-10, 2012-13)