AMP expenses need tangible evidence of an international transaction before transfer pricing adjustment can be sustained.

AMP expenses cannot be treated as an international transaction under transfer pricing law unless the Revenue first produces tangible material showing an actual understanding, arrangement, or action in concert with the foreign associated enterprise. Mere group relationship or incidental benefit to the foreign brand is insufficient, because Chapter X applies to an existing transaction and cannot be used to invent one by comparing AMP spend with comparables. On that basis, the Delhi HC stated that the AMP expenditure did not constitute an international transaction and that the related adjustment under the Income-tax Act could not be sustained, with the transfer pricing addition on AMP expenses set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether AMP expenses incurred by the assessee constituted an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B read with Section 92F(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the adjustment made on account of AMP expenses under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether AMP expenses incurred by the assessee constituted an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B read with Section 92F(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: For a transfer pricing exercise, the Revenue had first to establish the existence of an international transaction with some tangible material. A transaction under Chapter X could not be presumed merely because the assessee and its foreign associated enterprise belonged to the same group or because the foreign brand incidentally benefited from the assessee's advertising and marketing expenditure. The statutory scheme required substitution of the arm's length price of an existing transaction, not creation of a transaction by comparing allegedly excessive AMP spend with that of comparables. In the absence of evidence of an understanding, arrangement, or action in concert obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure for the foreign associated enterprise, no such transaction could be inferred.

Conclusion: The AMP expenditure did not constitute an international transaction and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjustment made on account of AMP expenses under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained.

Analysis: Once the Revenue failed to establish an international transaction, the proposed disallowance or transfer pricing addition in respect of AMP expenses could not stand. Mere incidental benefit to the foreign associated enterprise did not justify treating the assessee's business expenditure as an item incurred on behalf of that enterprise. In any event, the transfer pricing machinery could not be used to make an assumed adjustment in the absence of a legally ascertainable transaction and price.

Conclusion: The addition on account of AMP expenses was not sustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the core jurisdictional question, the transfer pricing addition was set aside, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer pricing adjustment can be made only in respect of an existing international transaction proved by tangible material, and a mere incidental benefit to a foreign associated enterprise cannot by itself create such a transaction or justify an AMP-based adjustment.

---