<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (10) TMI 358 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252224</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi upheld transfer pricing adjustments relating to excess advertisement and marketing promotion (AMP) expenses, requiring the assessee to demonstrate direct compensation from the AE for such expenses; mere higher overall profits did not exempt AMP scrutiny. Several issues, including exclusion of comparables with diminishing revenues or high related party transactions, were decided against the assessee, while filters on employee cost ratios and related party transaction thresholds were partially accepted. Use of multiple year data and entitlement to tax holiday under sections 10A/10B were rejected. The matter was remitted to the TPO for fresh adjudication on AMP expense valuation and risk profile adjustments. The provision for liquidated damages was allowed as a present liability crystallized upon contract delay. Overall, the tribunal affirmed most TPO findings but directed reconsideration on certain technical aspects in line with established transfer pricing principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2025 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 358 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252224</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi upheld transfer pricing adjustments relating to excess advertisement and marketing promotion (AMP) expenses, requiring the assessee to demonstrate direct compensation from the AE for such expenses; mere higher overall profits did not exempt AMP scrutiny. Several issues, including exclusion of comparables with diminishing revenues or high related party transactions, were decided against the assessee, while filters on employee cost ratios and related party transaction thresholds were partially accepted. Use of multiple year data and entitlement to tax holiday under sections 10A/10B were rejected. The matter was remitted to the TPO for fresh adjudication on AMP expense valuation and risk profile adjustments. The provision for liquidated damages was allowed as a present liability crystallized upon contract delay. Overall, the tribunal affirmed most TPO findings but directed reconsideration on certain technical aspects in line with established transfer pricing principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>