Tribunal rules AMP expenses not international transaction, favors assessee

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the AMP expenditure did not constitute an international transaction as there was no agreement with the associated enterprise (AE). It was established that the AMP expenses were solely for the assessee's business purposes, promoting specific products rather than the brand. The Tribunal rejected the application of the Bright Line Test and found the comparables chosen by the Transfer Pricing Officer inappropriate. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the absence of royalty payments for the brand name and concluded that the AMP expenses were not for brand promotion. Penalty proceedings were not addressed as the primary appeal favored the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the AMP expenditure constitutes an international transaction.
2. Whether the AMP expenditure incurred in India was solely for the assessee's business.
3. Application of the Bright Line Test for determining AMP expenditure.
4. Comparability of AMP expenses with well-established players.
5. Promotion of products vs. promotion of the brand.
6. Non-payment of royalty for the brand name.
7. Functional differences in comparables selected for AMP expenses.
8. Imputation of mark-up on AMP expenses.
9. Existence of DEMPE functions by the respondent.
10. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. AMP Expenditure as International Transaction:
The Revenue contended that the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee was an international transaction. The assessee argued that there was no arrangement or understanding with the AE for incurring AMP expenses, and hence, it should not be considered an international transaction. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish any agreement or understanding between the assessee and its AE for incurring AMP expenses for brand promotion. Consequently, 90.42% of the AMP expenditure was deemed not to constitute an international transaction.

2. AMP Expenditure for Assessee's Business:
The assessee maintained that the AMP expenses were incurred solely for its own business purposes and not for the benefit of the AE. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the AMP expenses were for promoting products like "Kinder Joy" and "Tic Tac," which did not exhibit the "Ferrero" brand. The Tribunal concluded that the AMP expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the assessee's business.

3. Application of Bright Line Test:
The Tribunal noted that the application of the Bright Line Test and the segregation of non-routine AMP expenses lacked statutory backing. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Sony Ericsson, which held that the Bright Line Test was not a valid method for determining AMP expenditure.

4. Comparability of AMP Expenses:
The assessee argued that the comparables selected by the TPO for benchmarking AMP expenses were not appropriate, as they were well-established players in the market. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the assessee was in its initial years of operation and incurred higher AMP expenses to establish its market presence. The Tribunal found that the comparables chosen by the TPO were not in the initial years of operation and thus not suitable for comparison.

5. Promotion of Products vs. Brand:
The Tribunal observed that the major portion of the AMP expenditure was for promoting products like "Kinder Joy" and "Tic Tac," which did not prominently feature the "Ferrero" brand. The Tribunal concluded that the AMP expenses were for product promotion rather than brand promotion.

6. Non-payment of Royalty:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not pay any royalty to its AE for using the brand name "Ferrero." This was in contrast to other companies in the industry that typically paid royalty for brand usage. The Tribunal held that the absence of royalty payments indicated that the AMP expenses were not for brand promotion.

7. Functional Differences in Comparables:
The Tribunal found that the comparables selected by the TPO were functionally different from the assessee, as they were engaged in marketing services. The Tribunal held that the comparables were not suitable for calculating the mark-up on AMP expenses.

8. Imputation of Mark-up:
The Tribunal rejected the TPO's imputation of an 18.25% mark-up on the alleged excessive AMP expenses. The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses were incurred solely for the assessee's business and did not result in the creation of marketing intangibles for the AE.

9. Existence of DEMPE Functions:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not undertake Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection, and Exploitation (DEMPE) functions for the AE. The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses were for the assessee's own business and did not benefit the AE.

10. Penalty Proceedings:
The Tribunal did not find it necessary to comment on the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) since the primary appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, concluding that there was no international transaction concerning AMP expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9,82,82,571/-.

---