Tribunal Partially Allows Appeal, Challenges Royalty Payment & Brand Expenses

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting adjustments for advertisement and publicity expenses, and brand development expenses. The issues of royalty payment and technical know-how fees were remanded back to the AO/TPO for reconsideration. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee on various grounds, highlighting uncontroverted evidence and incorrect approaches by the DRP in determining arm's length prices and disallowances.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment of advertisement and publicity expenses.
2. Benchmarking analysis using Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
3. Restriction on royalty payment for the use of trademark.
4. Disallowance of technical know-how fees.
5. Disallowance of brand development expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adjustment of Advertisement and Publicity Expenses:
The assessee contested the adjustment made by the revenue authorities, which restricted the adjustment to 50% of the advertisement and publicity expenses incurred for the purpose of computing the comparable uncontrolled arms-length price in respect of sales made to Associated Enterprises (AEs). The assessee argued that the expenditure was incurred in India for products targeting the Indian market, and similar expenses were incurred by AEs in their respective markets. The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions, supported by media service agreements and invoices, were uncontroverted. The Tribunal concluded that the adjustment made in the final assessment order could not be sustained and allowed Ground Nos. 1 & 2.

2. Benchmarking Analysis Using TNMM:
The assessee had carried out a comparability analysis using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), both internal and external, and demonstrated that the transactions were at Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dismissed this plea as redundant under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. The Tribunal found that the DRP's dismissal was not the correct approach, and the TNMM analysis remained uncontroverted and valid.

3. Restriction on Royalty Payment for the Use of Trademark:
The assessee paid trademark royalty at 5% and R&D royalty at 1.4%, totaling 6.4%. The DRP reduced the trademark royalty to 1% and determined the ALP of technical royalty as Nil. The Tribunal noted that the royalty rates were approved by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Government of India, and referred to a similar issue in AY 2007-08, where the ALP of the royalty was determined as 3.88%. The Tribunal restored the matter of trademark and R&D royalty back to the file of the AO/TPO for reconsideration and allowed Ground Nos. 3 & 4 for statistical purposes.

4. Disallowance of Technical Know-How Fees:
The DRP disregarded the agreements and reports substantiating the payment of technical know-how fees and disallowed the payment computed at 1.4% of qualifying net sales. The Tribunal restored this issue back to the AO/TPO for reconsideration along with the royalty payment issue.

5. Disallowance of Brand Development Expenses:
The assessee paid an amount as apportionment of cost allocation for brand development expenses to its AE. The DRP dismissed this ground as the assessee could not demonstrate the nature of expenses. The Tribunal found that the payments were made pursuant to a global brands cost allocation agreement, with costs allocated on a cost basis without any markup. The Tribunal noted that similar payments were made in preceding years without adjustment and found the TPO's approach of disallowing the entire payment without determining the ALP incorrect. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance and allowed Ground No. 5.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal deleting the adjustments related to advertisement and publicity expenses, and brand development expenses, while restoring the issues of royalty payment and technical know-how fees back to the AO/TPO for reconsideration.

---