Transfer pricing remanded for fresh benchmarking; interest allowed under proviso to section 36(1); advertising costs revenue

ITAT remanded the transfer pricing issue to the AO/TPO for fresh benchmarking of international transactions, accepting that key submissions were made for the first time on appeal and directing reconsideration; grounds 2-8 were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The tribunal directed that interest disallowed under proviso to section 36(1) be allowed as revenue expenditure. Expenditure treated as capital (advertising) was held to be revenue in nature and allowed, as it did not create a lasting capital asset or enduring advantage.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the transfer pricing provisions are attracted by treating a foreign entity as an Associated Enterprise (AE) for export transactions and whether the TPO/DRP correctly applied benchmarking (TNMM/internal TNMM) to those transactions.

2. Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer's use of the Bright Line Test (BLT) and treatment of a proportionate part of domestic advertisement expenses as an international transaction/brand utilisation fee is permissible and whether such expenses fall within the scope of Chapter X.

3. Whether the DRP and TPO were justified in using data not in the public domain for comparables and in their selection/adjustment of comparables and computation of Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for export v. domestic segments.

4. Whether the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) (disallowance of notional interest where borrowed funds deemed used to acquire asset) applies to interest on working capital loans where leasehold-premises improvements were held to be revenue expenditure.

5. Whether portions of advertisement expenditure are capital in nature (brand building) or revenue expenditure, and whether any disallowance results in double taxation where similar amounts were adjusted under transfer pricing.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - AE determination and benchmarking of international transactions (TNMM/internal TNMM)

Legal framework: Application of Chapter X (transfer pricing) requires (a) existence of international transaction with an Associated Enterprise as defined in the statute and (b) benchmarking of such international transactions to determine Arm's Length Price using an appropriate method (TNMM, internal TNMM etc.). The TPO is empowered to reject the taxpayer's selected method if not appropriate and to identify comparables and compute ALP.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal noted previous remand in an earlier year directing fresh benchmarking; the decision follows that precedent by ordering a fresh exercise. The Court relied on principles of assessing appropriateness of method and need to consider taxpayer's submissions.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that questions going to the root of benchmarking (including whether the foreign entity was an AE and whether prices were influenced by relationship) were raised for the first time before it and had not been conclusively resolved below. Given prior remand history and substantive disputes on comparability (e.g., cost of gold in domestic PLI computation versus export purchases at current rate), the Tribunal considered it appropriate in the interest of justice to remit the matter to AO/TPO for fresh benchmarking, taking appellant's submissions into account.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where core facts and methodological disputes bear directly on ALP determination, remand for fresh benchmarking is warranted rather than final confirmation of adjustments; the Tribunal's direction to remit is binding as a dispositive outcome. Obiter - remarks on the correctness of specific benchmarking figures as suggested by TPO are ancillary to the remand.

Conclusion: Grounds challenging AE status and benchmarking (grounds 2-8) partly allowed for statistical purposes; matter remanded to AO/TPO to reconsider AE determination and undertake fresh benchmarking with attention to taxpayer's arguments and prior Tribunal directions.

Issue 2 - Use of Bright Line Test and treatment of advertisement expenses as international transaction/brand utilisation fee

Legal framework: Transfer pricing methods prescribed under Chapter X do not expressly include the Bright Line Test; any charge characterized as brand/royalty or fee must constitute an international transaction with ascertainable price to attract Chapter X machinery.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal observed that BLT is not an approved transfer pricing method and the DRP/TPO's adoption of BLT for benchmarking is challenged. The DRP's confirmation of proportionate advertisement expense as subject to transfer pricing was set against requirement of specific reference to such international transaction by AO.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that advertisement expenses incurred domestically do not ipso facto constitute an international transaction absent a specific finding and reference. The TPO's unilateral benchmarking of advertisement expenses (not referred) and use of BLT were criticized. Because these issues are intertwined with the benchmarking exercise and AE determination, the Tribunal remanded the matter to AO/TPO to re-examine whether such advertisement expenses constitute an international transaction and, if so, the correct method to determine ALP (noting BLT is not an approved method).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - BLT is not an approved TP method and advertising expenses should not be treated as an international transaction without specific reference and proper application of approved methods. Obiter - general comments on BLT's inadequacy beyond the present facts.

Conclusion: The DRP's confirmation of BLT-based adjustment and treatment of proportionate advertisement expense under Chapter X is set aside for reconsideration; issue remitted to AO/TPO for proper adjudication using approved methods and after determining whether an international transaction exists.

Issue 3 - Use of non-public domain data, selection and adjustment of comparables, and computation of PLI for segments

Legal framework: Transfer pricing comparability requires reliance on reliable, preferably public, data for selecting comparables and computing PLI; segmental PLIs must be computed on comparable bases (cost definitions, inventory treatment, purchase prices).

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal required consideration of taxpayer's objections to comparability and data sources. Prior Tribunal remand in earlier assessment years was followed as justification for re-examination.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted appellant's contention that TPO used data not publicly available and inconsistent costing bases (e.g., domestic PLI including opening stock purchases vs. export gold purchased at current rate). These methodological differences go to the root of ALP computation. In the interests of justice and consistency with prior directions, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh examination of comparables, data sources and segmental PLI computation ensuring comparability of costing bases.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - comparability and data-source issues materially affect ALP and require AO/TPO's fresh determination; use of non-public data without addressing taxpayer's objections is not sustainable. Obiter - specific criticisms of particular data items are illustrative.

Conclusion: Selection/adjustment of comparables and PLI computations vacated for re-examination on remand.

Issue 4 - Disallowance of interest under proviso to section 36(1)(iii) where leasehold improvements held to be revenue expenditure

Legal framework: Proviso to section 36(1)(iii) disallows interest where borrowed funds are deemed used for acquisition of an asset; if expenditure is revenue in nature (not capital), proviso does not apply and interest is allowable as revenue expenditure.

Precedent Treatment: Tribunal relied on its own earlier decisions in appellant's matters and on the High Court's finding that renovation of leasehold premises was revenue expenditure; those precedents were applied to delete the notional interest disallowance.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found no contrary departmental contention and applied parity of reasoning from earlier Tribunal and High Court findings that leasehold improvements are revenue expenditure; consequently interest on working capital loans held allowable as revenue expenditure and the notional disallowance under proviso did not apply.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where leasehold improvements are held to be revenue expenditure, interest on borrowed funds used in the business is allowable and proviso to section 36(1)(iii) does not operate to disallow such interest. This is a binding dispositive finding for the appeals before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: Disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,39,04,056/- deleted; ground allowed.

Issue 5 - Nature of advertisement expenditure: capital v. revenue and risk of double disallowance

Legal framework: Classification of expenditure as capital or revenue depends on the purpose and whether an enduring advantage/capital asset accrues; recurring advertising for trading goods normally constitutes revenue expenditure unless a capital asset is acquired.

Precedent Treatment: Tribunal applied established tests (enduring benefit, acquisition of capital asset) and found merit in taxpayer's contention that advertising produced transient benefits and was incurred wholly and exclusively for business.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that recurring advertisement (print/visual media, showroom launch, website maintenance, discounts) did not result in acquisition of a capital asset or enduring advantage. The fact of recurring year-to-year expenditure indicated transient benefit; consequently the disallowance as capital was unfounded. The Tribunal also noted the appellant's contention regarding potential double taxation where TP adjustments also touch similar amounts; that ground was dealt with as consequential and dismissed.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the impugned classification of specified advertisement expenditure as capital is incorrect where no enduring advantage or capital asset is acquired; such expenditure is revenue in nature and allowable. Obiter - remarks on double disallowance are consequential and not adjudicated beyond dismissing the separate ground.

Conclusion: Advertisement expenditure disallowance of Rs. 1,05,59,467/- deleted; ground allowed. Consequential ground regarding double disallowance dismissed.

---