Appeal partially allowed, modifications in transfer pricing adjustments. Matter sent back for decision on AMP expenses.

The appeal was partly allowed with modifications in the transfer pricing adjustments for royalty payment and disallowance of provision for service warranty. Other grounds were dismissed or upheld based on the tribunal's consistent view and legal precedents. The matter was sent back to the Transfer Pricing Officer/Assessing Officer for decision in line with the Special Bench verdict on AMP expenses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. General and premature grounds.
2. Transfer pricing adjustment for AMP expenses.
3. Transfer pricing adjustment for royalty payment.
4. Transfer pricing adjustment for export commission.
5. Treatment of sales tax subsidy.
6. Disallowance of provision for service warranty.
7. Disallowance of royalty as capital expenditure.
8. Deduction under section 80JJAA.
9. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. General and Premature Grounds:
- Ground Nos. 1 and 6: General grounds not requiring separate adjudication.
- Ground No. 7: Not pressed by the appellant's representative.
- Ground No. 14: Dismissed as premature.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for AMP Expenses:
- Ground No. 3: Pertains to an addition of Rs. 1,82,71,11,446/- for AMP expenses.
- Special Bench Decision: The Special Bench in LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT held that transfer pricing adjustment for AMP expenses is permissible and the matter was restored to the TPO for de novo adjudication.
- Outcome: Matter sent back to TPO/AO for decision in line with the Special Bench verdict.

3. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Royalty Payment:
- Ground No. 4: Concerns the addition of Rs. 76,50,88,800/- for royalty payment.
- TNMM vs. CUP: The authorities rejected TNMM on an entity level for royalty and applied CUP method.
- RBI Approval: The court held that RBI's approval for royalty rates is persuasive but not binding for transfer pricing adjustments.
- Selection of Comparables: The court upheld the inclusion of three comparables and excluded five others.
- Perpetual Agreement Adjustment: The court agreed with reducing the royalty rate due to the perpetual nature of the agreement but adjusted the reduction to 10%, resulting in an arm's length rate of 4.05%.
- Consistency Principle: The court rejected the argument for consistency, stating the need to correct any mistakes from previous years.
- Outcome: Arm's length rate of royalty set at 4.05%, modifying the addition accordingly.

4. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Export Commission:
- Ground Nos. 5 and 11: Address the addition of Rs. 11,11,67,130/- for export commission.
- Lack of Evidence: The court found no concrete evidence of services rendered by the AE to justify the commission.
- TNMM on Entity Level: Rejected the application of TNMM on an entity level for this transaction.
- Cushman and Wakefield Principle: The court applied the principle that the TPO determines ALP, while the AO decides deductibility.
- Outcome: The addition was upheld due to the lack of evidence of services rendered.

5. Treatment of Sales Tax Subsidy:
- Ground No. 8: Concerns the treatment of Rs. 61,00,79,579/- as taxable revenue receipt.
- Consistent Tribunal View: The court followed the consistent view of treating sales tax subsidy as revenue receipt.
- Outcome: The ground was dismissed.

6. Disallowance of Provision for Service Warranty:
- Ground No. 9: Relates to the disallowance of Rs. 7,79,04,573/- for service warranty provision.
- Tribunal Precedent: The court followed the precedent of allowing this provision.
- Outcome: The ground was allowed.

7. Disallowance of Royalty as Capital Expenditure:
- Ground No. 10: Pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 81,98,02,800/- as capital expenditure.
- Nature of Royalty: The court held that the royalty payment for the use of technical know-how is revenue expenditure.
- Relevant Judgments: The court cited various Supreme Court judgments distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditures.
- Outcome: The royalty payment was treated as revenue expenditure.

8. Deduction Under Section 80JJAA:
- Ground No. 12: Concerns the restriction of deduction to Rs. 6.80 lakhs.
- Tribunal Precedent: The court followed the precedent of restricting the deduction.
- Outcome: The ground was dismissed.

9. Charging of Interest Under Sections 234B and 234C:
- Ground No. 18: The issue of charging interest is consequential.
- Outcome: The ground was disposed of accordingly.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed with modifications in the transfer pricing adjustments for royalty payment and disallowance of provision for service warranty, while other grounds were dismissed or upheld as per the tribunal's consistent view and legal precedents.

---