| |
| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 1900 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 92B
TPO failed to establish on record that there was an arrangement between assessee and the AE for incurring AMP expenditure. Therefore, AMP expenditure incurred by assessee could not be treated an international transaction as defined under section 92B and no transfer pricing adjustment could have been made.
|
Transfer pricing - International transaction - AMP expenses -
Assessee claimed deduction of advertising marketing and promotion (AMP) expenditure. TPO treated the same as international transaction calling for benefit of brand owned by assessee's AE abroad and, thus calling for TP adjustment. Held: TPO failed to establish on record that there was an arrangement between assessee and the AE for incurring AMP expenditure. Therefore, AMP expenditure incurred by assessee could not be treated an international transaction as defined under section 92B and no transfer pricing adjustment could have been made.
Followed:Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5219 (Del-HC) and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd. (Now Known as Sony India Limited) & Ors. v. CIT -- III 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1653 (Del-HC). Followed:
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2010-11
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 36(1)(iii)
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|