Tribunal decision: TPO lacks jurisdiction over AMP expenses, allows deductions for PLA and Consumer Product Research expenses

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) lacked jurisdiction over the Advertising, Marketing, and Promotional (AMP) expenses as they were not referred by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal directed the AO to remove the addition for AMP expenses, allowed the deduction for incremental balance in the Provision for Losses and Advances (PLA) under section 43B, and permitted the deduction for Consumer Product Research expenses under section 37(1). The Tribunal dismissed the interest levied under sections 234B and 234D as consequential.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transaction considered by the TPO is an international transaction.
2. Whether inference by TPO was permissible without reference from the AO.
3. Allowability as revenue expenses if indirect benefit to third party/AE.
4. Whether capital expenditure results in the creation of an intangible asset.
5. If yes, whether such intangibles are created on behalf of/transferred to AE.
6. Applicability of US Regulations and OECD Guidelines/No deeming provision as in US Regulations.
7. On facts, expenditure normal/not extraordinary and in line with the industry spend.
8. Comparables considered by the TPO not relevant for AMP expenses.
9. In any case, AMP expenses demonstrated to be at arm's length apply entity-wide basis.
10. Adjustment, even otherwise, not sustainable, not being based on any of the methods prescribed in Transfer Pricing regulations.
11. Without prejudice, no adjustment for AMP expenses for Viva Maltova and Boost.
12. Non-allowance of deduction for incremental balance lying in PLA under section 43B.
13. Disallowance of Consumer Product Research expenses under section 37(1).
14. Levying interest under sections 234B and 234D.

Analysis:

1. Whether the transaction considered by the TPO is an international transaction:
The Tribunal analyzed the definition of "international transaction" under section 92B of the Income Tax Act, which includes transactions between associated enterprises involving the purchase, sale, or lease of tangible or intangible property, provision of services, or any other transaction having a bearing on profits, income, losses, or assets. The Tribunal found that the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee were not at the instance of the associated enterprise (AE) and did not result from any arrangement or understanding with the AE. Therefore, the AMP expenses could not be characterized as an international transaction.

2. Whether inference by TPO was permissible without reference from the AO:
The Tribunal held that the TPO's jurisdiction is limited to the international transactions referred to him by the AO. In this case, the AMP expenses were not referred to the TPO by the AO. The Tribunal relied on the CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2003 and various judicial precedents, including the case of Amadeus India (P.) Ltd., to conclude that the TPO cannot suo moto take cognizance of any transaction not referred to him by the AO.

3. Allowability as revenue expenses if indirect benefit to third party/AE:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail as it was rendered moot by the conclusion that the AMP expenses were not international transactions and the TPO's jurisdiction was not valid.

4. Whether capital expenditure results in the creation of an intangible asset:
The Tribunal did not delve into this issue separately, as the primary contention regarding the nature of the AMP expenses was resolved by determining that they were not international transactions.

5. If yes, whether such intangibles are created on behalf of/transferred to AE:
Similar to the previous issue, this point was not separately addressed due to the primary conclusion that the AMP expenses were not international transactions.

6. Applicability of US Regulations and OECD Guidelines/No deeming provision as in US Regulations:
The Tribunal noted that the TPO had relied on US Transfer Pricing regulations and OECD guidelines, but emphasized that Indian transfer pricing regulations do not have a deeming provision similar to the US regulations. Therefore, the application of such guidelines was not warranted in this case.

7. On facts, expenditure normal/not extraordinary and in line with the industry spend:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary conclusion regarding the nature of the AMP expenses rendered this point moot.

8. Comparables considered by the TPO not relevant for AMP expenses:
The Tribunal did not delve into the appropriateness of the comparables selected by the TPO, as the primary conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of the TPO rendered this point moot.

9. In any case, AMP expenses demonstrated to be at arm's length apply entity-wide basis:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary conclusion regarding the nature of the AMP expenses rendered this point moot.

10. Adjustment, even otherwise, not sustainable, not being based on any of the methods prescribed in Transfer Pricing regulations:
The Tribunal did not delve into the appropriateness of the adjustment method used by the TPO, as the primary conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of the TPO rendered this point moot.

11. Without prejudice, no adjustment for AMP expenses for Viva Maltova and Boost:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary conclusion regarding the nature of the AMP expenses rendered this point moot.

12. Non-allowance of deduction for incremental balance lying in PLA under section 43B:
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction for the incremental balance lying in the PLA account under section 43B, following the precedent set by the Special Bench in the assessee's own case and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Raj & San Deeps Ltd.

13. Disallowance of Consumer Product Research expenses under section 37(1):
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for Consumer Product Research expenses, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

14. Levying interest under sections 234B and 234D:
The Tribunal dismissed this ground as consequential.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal held that the TPO's jurisdiction was not valid for the AMP expenses as they were not referred by the AO and directed the AO to delete the addition made on account of AMP expenses. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for the incremental balance lying in the PLA account under section 43B and the Consumer Product Research expenses under section 37(1).

---