Transfer pricing precedent controls AMP, receivables interest and comparable selection disputes under materially similar facts.

Transfer pricing disputes concerning AMP adjustment, alleged international transaction, interest on receivables, and comparable selection were treated as covered by binding precedent on materially similar facts. The Delhi HC followed its earlier rulings on AMP issues, including the BLT method, conduct of parties, ownership of intangibles, and alleged brand-building benefit to the associated enterprise, and found no basis to depart from that view. It also applied the earlier decision on receivables interest and the prior order on FAR-based comparable selection. All issues were therefore decided against the Revenue, and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing issues concerning AMP adjustment and alleged international transaction were already covered against the Revenue by binding precedent; (ii) whether a separate adjustment for interest on receivables was warranted; and (iii) whether the Tribunal was justified in including the impugned comparable despite the alleged dissimilarity in FAR.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing issues concerning AMP adjustment and alleged international transaction were already covered against the Revenue by binding precedent.

Analysis: The issues relating to AMP adjustment, the BLT method, conduct of parties, ownership of intangibles, and alleged brand-building benefit to the associated enterprise were noted to be covered by prior decisions of the Court on similar facts. The Court treated those questions as governed by the earlier binding view and found no occasion to take a different view.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a separate adjustment for interest on receivables was warranted.

Analysis: The question of receivables interest was held to be covered by the earlier decision relied upon by the Tribunal, and the Court found no reason to depart from that position.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in including the impugned comparable despite the alleged dissimilarity in FAR.

Analysis: The comparable-selection issue was also found to be covered by an earlier order of the Court in the assessee's own case, leading to the same result.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: All the questions raised in the appeals were treated as covered against the appellant-Department, and the appeals did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the transfer pricing questions raised in an appeal are already covered by binding precedent on materially similar facts, the Court will follow that precedent and decline to interfere.

---