Transfer pricing and secondment payments required fresh verification before AMP benchmarking and withholding-tax adjustments could stand.

AMP expenditure could not be benchmarked independently without first verifying whether the agreements created an international transaction and how the AMP arrangement operated. Sales-related expenditure and subsidy were directed to be excluded from the AMP base, while business promotion expenses required fresh examination on the record. Reimbursement of salary paid to seconded employees could not be conclusively treated as fees for technical services on the existing material because the secondment agreement was not before the Tribunal, so the withholding-tax and section 40(a)(i) question had to be rechecked. TDS credit was also left for verification, with interest consequential and penalty premature.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the AMP expenditure could be treated as an international transaction and benchmarked independently, including by applying the profit split method; (ii) Whether selling and business promotion expenses and subsidy were to be excluded from the AMP base; (iii) Whether reimbursement of salary paid to seconded employees was liable to tax deduction at source as fees for technical services and disallowable under section 40(a)(i); (iv) Whether TDS credit and consequential interest and penalty grounds required adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the AMP expenditure could be treated as an international transaction and benchmarked independently, including by applying the profit split method.

Analysis: The controversy was held to depend upon the agreements governing the assessee's dealings with its associated enterprises and the actual nature of the AMP arrangement. Following the earlier orders in the assessee's own case, the matter was directed to be verified afresh by the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officer. Since the foundational question whether there was an international transaction itself required examination, the benchmarking exercise and the choice of the most appropriate method also had to be reconsidered.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh verification and determination.

Issue (ii): Whether selling and business promotion expenses and subsidy were to be excluded from the AMP base.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier view that sales-related expenditure and subsidy could not be mechanically included in the AMP pool. Business promotion expenses, however, were to be examined in the light of the relevant agreements and the records before the Transfer Pricing Officer, and then decided in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for reconsideration, with directions to exclude the identified sales-related items and to verify business promotion expenses as per law.

Issue (iii): Whether reimbursement of salary paid to seconded employees was liable to tax deduction at source as fees for technical services and disallowable under section 40(a)(i).

Analysis: The nature of the secondment arrangement could not be conclusively determined on the existing material because the secondment agreement was not placed before the Tribunal. The documents suggested integration of the secondees into the assessee's organisation, but the Tribunal held that the decisive issue was whether the payment was truly a mere salary reimbursement or consideration for services. For that purpose, the secondment agreement and the surrounding contractual matrix required verification by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh decision in accordance with law.

Issue (iv): Whether TDS credit and consequential interest and penalty grounds required adjudication.

Analysis: The TDS credit issue was treated as a matter for examination by the Assessing Officer. The interest grounds were held to be consequential, and the penalty ground was premature.

Conclusion: The TDS credit issue was left for verification, while the interest and penalty grounds did not call for adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were substantially allowed by way of remand and verification directions, with the assessee obtaining relief on all substantive controversies but without a final adjudication on merits of the additions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the character of AMP expenditure or secondment-related payments depends on contractual terms and the governing agreements are not adequately examined, the proper course is fresh verification by the tax authorities before a transfer pricing or withholding-tax adjustment is sustained.

---