Tribunal rules AMP expenses not international transactions under Income Tax Act

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the Advertising, Marketing, and Sales Promotion (AMP) expenses were not international transactions under Section 92 of the Income Tax Act. It found that the assessee was not obligated to incur AMP expenses for the associated enterprise (AE), leading to the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clear statutory mandates in transfer pricing adjustments and upheld the principles of natural justice. The appeals by the assessee were partly allowed, while the appeal by the Assessing Officer was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the AMP (Advertising, Marketing, and Sales Promotion) expenses incurred by the assessee constitute an international transaction under Section 92 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the adjustment made by the TPO on account of AMP expenses and the resultant markup is justified.
3. Whether the adjustment on account of the purchase of raw materials from the AE is justified.
4. Whether the addition made on account of surplus stock is justified.
5. Disallowance of club expenditure.
6. Disallowance of royalty payment.
7. Disallowance of expenses and custom duty paid through the liaison office in Sri Lanka.
8. Levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. AMP Expenses as International Transaction:

The assessee argued that the AMP expenses incurred were not covered by the provisions of Section 92 of the Act and were not international transactions. The TPO, however, treated the AMP expenses as international transactions, applying the Bright Line Test (BLT) and determining that the assessee was promoting the brands of its AE without compensation. The DRP upheld the TPO's view, stating that the AMP expenses contributed significantly to the brand value of the AE and compensation was warranted.

The Tribunal, however, referred to the judgments of Maruti Suzuki, Whirlpool India, and Bausch & Lomb Eyecare, which extensively deliberated on AMP expenses. It concluded that there was no agreement obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenses for the AE, and the AMP expenses were not international transactions. Thus, the additions made by the AO were directed to be deleted.

2. Adjustment on Account of AMP Expenses and Resultant Markup:

The TPO linked AMP expenses with sales support services, suggesting that the assessee should have recovered the AMP expenses plus a markup from the AE. The DRP partly agreed but directed the AO to apply the correct profit margin. The Tribunal held that since the AMP expenses were not international transactions, no adjustment could be made for the markup on AMP expenses. The additions were deleted.

3. Adjustment on Account of Purchase of Raw Materials from AE:

The TPO rejected the internal TNMM adopted by the assessee for determining the ALP of raw material purchases from AE, applying external TNMM instead. The DRP directed the AO to recalculate the margin considering the adjustment on AMP expenses. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, noting that the AMP expenses were not international transactions.

4. Addition on Account of Surplus Stock:

During a survey, discrepancies in stock were found, leading to an addition of Rs. 1.47 crores. The DRP upheld the addition, but the Tribunal noted that the principles of natural justice were not followed as the assessee was not provided with the necessary documents. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

5. Disallowance of Club Expenditure:

The Tribunal followed its earlier order and the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, allowing the club expenditure as a business expense.

6. Disallowance of Royalty Payment:

The AO disallowed the royalty payment, questioning its business purpose and noting that the royalty was waived retrospectively. The DRP upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the royalty payment was not claimed in the year under consideration due to the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and treated the ground as infructuous.

7. Disallowance of Expenses and Custom Duty Paid through Liaison Office in Sri Lanka:

These grounds were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed as not pressed.

8. Levy of Interest under Section 234B:

This ground was consequential in nature and not separately adjudicated.

Rejection of BLT by DRP:

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's rejection of the BLT, referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which held that BLT cannot be used for determining AMP expenses.

Conclusion:

The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal filed by the AO was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the need for clear statutory mandates in transfer pricing adjustments.

---